104
UDK 821.163.6.09-2  
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/104-122
Sodobna dramatika je do neke mere dedinja neoavantgarde s konca šestdesetih in iz 
sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Takrat se je namreč zgodil t. i. performativni obrat, ki 
je gledališče potegnil stran od reprezentacije k prezentaciji. Razvoj, ki je sledil, označujemo 
z različnimi oznakami, npr. postdramsko gledališče, estetika performativnega, v primeru 
dramskih besedil pa kot ne več dramski gledališki tekst, gledališče »u fris« ipd.
Tudi na Slovenskem se je konec šestdesetih let zgodil odločilen zasuk od besedila k 
dogodku. Takrat so nastali prvi hepeningi in performansi, ob Pupiliji pa je Veno Taufer 
razglasil kar smrt literarnega gledališča. Na prvi pogled se torej zdi, da sodobna dramska 
pisava ponavlja prejšnje vzorce. Da morda radikalneje ubeseduje jezikovne in estetske 
igre, dekonstruira dramsko formo in torej radikalizira nastavke neoavantgard, a vendar v 
zadnjih dveh desetletjih govorimo o vračanju k dramskemu, o postpostdramskem, o (spet) 
dramskih tekstih itd. 
S primerjalno analizo dveh radikalnejših besedil iz zbornika Generator:: za proizvodnjo 
poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (Sinopsis za happening Hlapci Dušana Jovanovića 
in Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število 
dramskih kompleksov Rastka Močnika) ter dveh besedil Simone Semenič in Varje Hrvatin 
(mi, evropski mrliči in Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov) razprava pokaže, da gre pri 
neoavantgardah za vprašanje gledališke uprizoritve in forme dramskega teksta, pri sodobni 
dramatiki pa bolj za način iskanja avtentičnosti in dramatičnih učinkov.
Ključne besede: Dušan Jovanović, Rastko Močnik, Simona Semenič, Varja Hrvatin, slovensko 
eksperimentalno gledališče, slovenska dramatika
Gašper Troha je doktoriral na Oddelku za primerjalno književnost in literarno teorijo 
Filozofske fakultete Univerze v Ljubljani. Ukvarja se s sociologijo literature, še posebej z 
vprašanji sodobne svetovne in slovenske dramatike ter gledališča. Deluje kot raziskovalec na 
AGRFT Univerze v Ljubljani. Objavljal je v številnih domačih in tujih znanstvenih revijah. Med 
drugim je soavtor knjig Zgodovina in njeni literarni žanri (Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 
2008), Literarni modernizem v »svinčenih« letih (Študentska založba, 2008) in Lojze 
Kovačič: življenje in delo (Študentska založba, 2009). Leta 2015 je izdal monografijo Ujetniki 
svobode o razvoju slovenske dramatike in gledališča pod socializmom.
gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si
105
Sodobna dramatika in vprašanje 
dediščine neoavantgarde šestdesetih in 
sedemdesetih let
Gašper Troha  
Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, Univerza v Ljubljani
Uvod
1
Sodobna dramatika je do neke mere dedinja neoavantgarde s konca šestdesetih in iz 
sedemdesetih let prejšnjega stoletja. Takrat se je namreč zgodil t. i. performativni obrat, ki 
je gledališče potegnil stran od reprezentacije k prezentaciji. Kot ugotavlja Barbara Orel ob 
razvoju performansa, je »pot v performans tudi v slovenskem prostoru šla prek estetike 
performativnega, pri kateri so imele vodilno vlogo ritualne oblike gledališča ter ritualom 
sorodne umetniške in družbene prakse, ki vse udeležence povezujejo v skupnost.« (»K 
zgodovini« 278) Razvoj, ki je sledil, označujemo z različnimi oznakami, npr. postdramsko 
gledališče (Lehmann), estetika performativnega (Fischer-Lichte), v primeru dramskih 
besedil pa kot ne več dramski gledališki tekst (Poschmann), gledališče »u fris« (Sierz) ipd.
Tudi na Slovenskem je konec šestdesetih let pomenil odločilen zasuk od besedila k 
dogodku. Takrat so nastali prvi hepeningi in performansi, ob Pupiliji pa je Veno Taufer 
razglasil kar smrt literarnega gledališča. 
Na prvi pogled se morda zdi, da sodobna dramska pisava ponavlja prejšnje vzorce. Da 
morda radikalneje ubeseduje jezikovne in estetske igre, dekonstruira dramsko formo in 
torej radikalizira nastavke neoavantgard. Pa vendar v zadnjih dveh desetletjih govorimo 
o vračanju k dramskemu (Toporišič, »Dramska«), o postpostdramskem (Angel-Perez), o 
neodramskem gledališču (Monfort), (spet) dramskih tekstih (Haas) itd. 
Vprašanji, ki se nam postavljata, torej sta:
Kje so razlike med eksperimentalnimi besedili druge polovice prejšnjega stoletja in 
sodobno slovensko dramatiko? Kaj so njihove skupne značilnosti? 
1 Zahvala: članek je nastal v okviru raziskovalnega programa Gledališke in medumetnostne raziskave (P6–0376), ki ga 
sofinancira Javna agencija za raziskovalno dejavnost Republike Slovenije iz državnega proračuna.
106 Osvetlili ju bomo z analizo dveh radikalnejših besedil iz zbornika Generator:: za 
proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (Sinopsis za happening Hlapci 
Dušana Jovanovića in Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja 
poljubno število dramskih kompleksov Rastka Močnika) ter njuno primerjavo z besedili 
Simone Semenič in Varje Hrvatin (s tekstoma mi, evropski mrliči Simone Semenič in 
Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov Varje Hrvatin).
Še preden pa se lahko lotimo analize izbranih besedil, moramo premisliti osnovne 
teoretske pojme, s katerimi teatrologija in literarna zgodovina opisujeta razvoj 
dramske pisave zadnjih 60 let.
Performativni obrat in njegove posledice v gledališču in 
dramski pisavi
Kot smo že opozorili na samem začetku, je ob koncu šestdesetih let v Evropi, ZDA 
pa tudi v takratni Jugoslaviji prišlo do radikalnih sprememb v umetnosti in njenem 
odnosu do družbe. Te je kasneje Erika Fischer-Lichte v svoji temeljni knjigi Estetika 
performativnega poimenovala z naslovnim terminom. Utemeljila ga je ob performansu 
jugoslovanske umetnice Marine Abramović Lips of Thomas, ki ga je ta izvedla 24. 
10. 1975 v galeriji Krinzinger v Innsbrucku. Poanto spremembe avtorica opiše na 
naslednji način:
Takšen performans se izmika prijemom tradicionalnih estetskih teorij. Trmasto se 
upira hermenevtični estetiki, ki meri na to, da bi umetniško delo razumela. Tu namreč 
ne gre toliko za razumevanje dejanj, ki jih je izvedla umetnica, kot za izkustva, do katerih 
je pri tem prišla sama, pa tudi za tista, ki jih je izzvala v gledalcih; na kratko: gre za 
transformacijo udeležencev performansa. (19)
Da bi takšne dogodke lahko opisali in jim pripisali določene pomene, je potreben 
drugačen pristop, ki ga Fischer-Lichte imenuje estetika performativnega, saj 
tradicionalne estetske teorije umetnosti niso zmožne misliti umetniškega dela po 
performativnem obratu. »Ključnega momenta obrata, spremembe od dela in z njim 
vzpostavljenih relacij do dogodka – namreč subjekt proti objektu ter materialni status 
proti znakovnemu – niso zmožne doumeti« (31). Te pojmovne dvojice se namreč 
prekrivajo in s tem proizvajajo učinke liminalnosti, praga, ki udeležence transformira 
oz. ima za posledico emergenco (naključno pojavljanje) učinkov oz. pomenov.
Drug avtor, ki je pomembno konceptualiziral razvoj gledališča in gledaliških besedil 
po performativnem obratu, je Hans-Thies Lehmann s svojo knjigo Postdramsko 
gledališče. Tudi Lehmann izhaja iz spoznanja, da je gledališče v prvi vrsti stvar 
skupnosti. »Gledališče pomeni: čas, ki ga skupaj preživijo in skupaj porabijo igralci 
107 in gledalci v prostoru [...]. Gledališka predstava na podlagi vedenja na odru in v 
prostoru za gledalce proizvede skupni tekst, tudi če ni izrečena nobena beseda« (20). 
Poudarjena je torej najprej zmožnost gledališča, da oblikuje skupnost, nato pa je 
problematizirana pozicija besedila, ki je bilo tradicionalno izvor in merilo uspešnosti 
gledališke uprizoritve ter element, ki je gledališkim znakom garantiral sintezo.
V postdramskem gledališču se ta hierarhija zamaje, elementi uprizoritve postanejo 
enakovredni, poudarjeni pa sta njihovi simultanost in večpomenskost. Kot zapiše 
Lehmann že v uvodu svoje knjige:
Naslov »postdramsko gledališče« s tem, da namiguje na literarno zvrst drame, signalizira 
povezanost in izmenjavo, ki med gledališčem in besedilom obstaja še naprej, četudi je 
tu v središču diskurz gledališča, zaradi česar upošteva besedilo le kot element, plast in 
»material« odrske stvaritve, ne kot njenega vladarja. (21)
Postdramsko gledališče posledično proizvaja drugačna dramska besedila, ki jih Gerda 
Poschmann imenuje ne več dramski gledališki teksti, »v katerih jezik ni govorica likov 
– kolikor liki, ki jih je mogoče definirati, sploh še obstajajo – pač pa se pojavlja kot 
avtonomna teatralika« (21). Ne moremo več govoriti o elementih tradicionalne teorije 
drame, kakršni so dramska oseba, dramsko dejanje, ustvarjanje iluzije ... (prim. Kralj), 
ampak govorimo o jeziku, ki se osamosvaja, o govornih ploskvah, kakor jih imenuje 
Elfriede Jelinek, ki ustvarjajo napetost in odsevajo sodobni svet. 
Za nas je zanimiv še Lehmannov pogled na neoavantgardo, ki jo razume kot tretjo 
etapo razvoja postdramskega gledališča, saj v to obdobje spadajo tudi besedila, ki so 
objavljena v Generatorju. Kot neoavantgardo sicer razume predvsem dramo absurda 
in lirsko dramo, a se zaveda, da v »60. letih nastane, v gibanju 68 pa doseže vrh nov 
duh eksperimentiranja v vseh umetnostih« (66). Pri tem omenja tudi hepeninge in 
performans ter posebej omenja, da je »Richard Schechner uprizoril Dioniza 69 (Dionysius 
69), pri katerem so bili gledalci povabljeni, da stopijo v telesni stik z igralci« (67). To 
pa nas že pelje v polje postdramskega. Za Lehmanna je namreč določujoča lastnost 
postdramskega prav položaj dramskega besedila. Ko skuša najti razlike med epskim 
gledališčem in gledališčem absurda na eni in postdramskim na drugi strani, zapiše:
Vendar je storjen korak proti postdramskemu gledališču šele, ko so gledališka 
sredstva onstran jezika enakopravna z besedilom in jih je mogoče sistematično misliti 
tudi brez njega. Zaradi tega ne bi govorili o »nadaljevanju« absurdnega in epskega 
gledališča v novem gledališču, temveč bi označili prelom, da se tako epsko kot tudi 
absurdno gledališče z različnimi sredstvi držita predstavljanja fiktivnega in fingiranega 
besedilnega kozmosa kot dominante, postdramsko gledališče pa nič več. (69)
Ker je dramsko besedilo znotraj uprizoritve detronizirano, se zamaje tudi pomen 
celote. Ta nima več koherence in je težko določljiv. Postane fluiden in odvisen od 
108 interpretacije posameznika. Z Lehmannovimi besedami: »Gledališče nič več ne 
stremi po celovitosti estetske gledališke zgradbe iz besede, pomena, zvoka, geste, 
temveč dobiva značaj fragmenta in parcialnosti« (70). Prav to pa so, kot bomo 
videli v nadaljevanju, tudi poglavitne značilnosti obravnavanih dramskih tekstov. 
V njih izginjajo elementi drame, besedilo postaja razpoložljivo in ureja tudi ostale 
elemente gledališke uprizoritve. Pomen se izgublja oz. ostaja skrajno odprt, kar pelje 
v fragmentarnost in poljubnost interpretacije.
Opisani razvoj gledališke uprizoritve in umetnosti na sploh, ki je izšel iz duha 
študentskih nemirov leta 1968, se je v nekdanji Jugoslaviji ujel s težnjami po popolni 
svobodi ustvarjanja in po iskanju novega načina življenja. Kot ugotavlja Barbara Orel, 
je ta generacija sledila »imperativu kreativnega življenja, svojo radikalno držo pa je 
vzdrževala v svobodomiselnem levičarskem duhu, ki se upira vsakršnim oblikam 
političnega, družbenega, gospodarskega in kulturnega despotizma« (»K zgodovini« 
278, 279). Ta zahteva po svobodi pa je seveda peljala stran od ustaljenih načinov 
uprizarjanja, od hierarhičnih razmerij znotraj uprizoritve in k oblikovanju skupnosti.
Nikakor pa tu ni šlo za slovenski fenomen, ampak za širše jugoslovanski. Tako 
Branislav Jakovljević v svoji natančni raziskavi razmerij med razvojem performansa in 
jugoslovanskega socializma prav tako zazna spontani nastanek študentskega gibanja 
leta 1968, ki pa je bilo kmalu nevtralizirano. Samoupravljanje se je namreč ponujalo kot 
družbena oblika, ki dopušča skrajno svobodo posameznika, torej nekakšno izpolnitev 
študentskih zahtev, ki pa seveda nikoli ni bila neproblematična. Tako Jakovljević analizira 
performans Raše Todosijevića Odločitev kot umetnost, ki ga je prvič izvedel avgusta 
1973 v Galeriji Richarda Demarca v Edinburgu. Le nekaj mesecev kasneje ga je izvedel v 
Študentskem kulturnem centru v Beogradu na razstavi Informacije II, kjer je performans 
dobil povsem drugačne konotacije. Performans je umetnik izvedel s svojo partnerko 
Marinelo Koželj, ki je negibno sedela na stolu na odru. Raša je najprej pobarval štiri fikuse 
z belo barvo. Nato je svoje telo prekril s soljo in vzel iz akvarija živega krapa ter ga položil 
na tla. Potem je sam začel goltati velike količine vode, krap pa se je premetaval po tleh in 
umiral. Umetnik golta vodo in bruha, dokler riba ne pogine. Performer si pobarva eno uho 
v belo in se obrne proti občinstvu. V rokah drži baterijsko svetilko, dokler se baterija ne 
izprazni ali dokler ne more več zdržati v tem položaju (prim. 169).
Čeprav je britanska monarhija daleč od absolutizma 18. stoletja, njeno ideološko, 
politično in teološko ozadje v prvo izvedbo Todosijevićevega performansa Odločitev 
kot umetnost vnese noto plemenite in poudarjeno protidemokratične umetnosti 
odločanja. Ko ga vnovič izvede v jugoslovanski porevolucionarni družbi, isti 
performans postavi v ospredje popolnoma nov niz vprašanj. »[Č]e je bila prva v celoti 
integrirana v mrežo umetnostnih ustanov, je bil drugi izraz in nadaljevanje duha 
komune iz beograjskega junija '68« (172).
109 Kar je v Veliki Britaniji delovalo kot komentar kapitalističnih družbenih razmerij v 
monarhiji, je bilo v Jugoslaviji razumljeno kot oblastni obračun s študenti po letu 
1968. Umetniki so torej s svojim umetniškim iskanjem postavljali tudi komentar 
svobode izražanja in pravice do posameznikove izbire življenjskega sloga, s čimer so 
posredno izražali družbeni komentar.
Na prvi pogled eksplicitnejši je performans Marine Abramović: »Ko je 20. aprila 
1974 Marina Abramović po tistem, ko si je najprej porezala nohte na rokah in nogah 
ter si odrezala del las, nato pa vse to vrgla v ogenj, zgodaj zvečer stopila v gorečo 
peterokrako zvezdo, je stopila v presečišče umetnosti in politike, konceptualizma in 
politike, kar je bilo za Jugoslavijo po letu 1968 nekaj edinstvenega« (Jakovljević 206).
Marina Abramović je veliko eksplicitnejše pokazala na zvezo med oblastjo in 
umetnostjo, kar je kasneje še ponovila (npr. uporaba peterokrake zvezde v Lips of 
Thomas). Vendar pa tega dejanja ne moremo brati kot simbol oblastnega nasilja ali 
izgorevajočih revolucionarnih idealov. »Položaj v Jugoslaviji je bil veliko bolj zapleten, 
zato bi bilo znatno primernejše, če bi pet glavnih točk te plameneče strukture razlagali 
kot konstelacijo vzajemno nasprotujočih si sil, ki so v tistem času delovale v Jugoslaviji« 
(Jakovljević 208). Podobno ugotavlja Gašper Troha ob raziskavi slovenske dramatike in 
gledališča med letoma 1945 in 1990, ko prikaže občutljivo ravnovesje med večinoma 
nasprotujočimi si težnjami umetnikov, oblasti in publike, ki so omogočile razcvet 
slovenske dramske pisave in gledališča po letu 1960 (prim. Ujetniki). Razprava o odnosih 
med umetnostjo in oblastjo v socializmu pa seveda presega naš pričujoči namen, zato 
na tem mestu le povzemimo spoznanje, da je umetnost z estetskimi prelomi in iskanji v 
nekdanji Jugoslaviji dobila tudi politični učinek.
Sodobna dramska pisava med postdramskim in dramskim
Prav zaradi zgoraj omenjene pozicije alternativne kulture, ki je z margine prišla v 
center v osemdesetih letih prejšnjega stoletja, se je po letu 1990 gledališče na splošno, 
eksperimentalna umetnost pa še posebej, znašlo pred izzivom, ki ga lucidno formulira 
Barbara Orel: »Kako ohraniti in vzdrževati identiteto alternativnega, če ne nagovarja 
več s strukturnega mesta marginalnega, saj je razlika med centrom in margino 
načeloma razveljavljena?« (»K zgodovini« 320).
Odgovor na to vprašanje je bilo iskanje novih konceptualnih in estetskih izhodišč, ki 
bi pomenila alternativo v novih kulturnopolitičnih razmerah samostojne države. Ta 
alternativa se je vzpostavila po letu 2000 v radikalizaciji postdramskega in kasneje v 
njegovem soobstoju z vračanjem k dramski formi.
110 Ker smo postdramsko gledališče in ne več dramski gledališki tekst že opisali, si 
poglejmo, kakšne so najnovejše tendence v dramski pisavi, ki se pri posameznih 
avtorjih mešajo s postdramskimi ali bolj tradicionalno dramskimi elementi.
Birgit Haas ob sodobni nemški dramatiki ugotavlja, da je kljub dolgemu 
postdramskemu obdobju spet začela uporabljati nekatere dramske elemente. Kot 
zapiše ob dramatiki Dee Loher:
Kljub uporabi potujitvenega efekta se ne prepusti niti postmodernistični dekonstrukciji 
subjekta niti koncu pripovedi. Prav nasprotno, Loher gradi na konceptu revolucionarne 
marksistične estetike Walterja Benjamina, s katero je slednji skušal ohraniti človeškost 
v umetnosti, element človeškosti, ki bi lahko kljuboval tehničnim inovacijam njegovega 
časa. (Haas 74)
Pri tem pa ne gre za vračanje k realizmu, ampak za skrajno fragmentarne tekste, ki 
nosijo pečat postdramskega, saj avtorica
namenoma gradi občutek negotovosti kot posledico mešanice zasebnih in javnih političnih 
diskurzov. [...] Njeno delo je kreativno in uspešno obujanje brechtovskega gledališča v 
kontekstu postmoderne dobe, dobe, v kateri so ljudje ponovno zavzeli gledališki prostor. 
[...] Gledališče Dee Loher je gledališče opravnomočenja, politično gledališče, ki gledalca ne 
pusti povsem zmedenega pred podobo družbe po koncu zgodovine. (Haas 85)
Podobna spoznanja srečamo pri Tomažu Toporišiču, ki analizira dramsko pisanje 
po postdramskem. Pri tem ugotavlja, da avtorice Anja Hilling, Milena Marković in 
Simona Semenič na različne načine presegajo ne več dramsko gledališko pisavo. 
Tako detektira nezmožnost komunikacije in razstavljanje telesa in glasu ob Anji 
Hilling, dekonstrukcijo in rekonstrukcijo reprezentacije realnosti ob dramah 
Simone Semenič in kontaminacijo z lirskim in epskim ob delih Milene Marković. 
Poglejmo si le njegov opis strukture dramatike Simone Semenič, ki nas bo v 
nadaljevanju posebej zanimala:
Dialoško obliko sicer vztrajno predeluje v družbi z raznorodnimi besedilnimi 
strategijami: od odrskih smernic do opisov, ki so bližje romanu in prozi, pripovednih, 
esejističnih, teoretičnih in drugih tehnik, ki občinstvo opominjajo, da to, kar bere ali 
gleda, ni več realen dialog. Toda pri tem proizvede izrazito dramatične učinke, ki bi jih 
Haasova najbrž imenovala »dramatično dramske«. (»Dramska« 114)
Élisabeth Angel-Perez pride do podobnih ugotovitev. Namreč, da postdramsko 
gledališče preko dekonstrukcije drame pravzaprav kreira novo fikcijo, s tem pa se 
vrača k elementom, ki jih je prvotno dekonstruiralo. Kot zapiše sama ob koncu članka 
»Nazaj k verbalnemu gledališču«:
Avtor na odru izrisuje novo vrsto lirskega subjekta, ki obstaja nekje vmes med 
gledališčem in performansom in, čeprav se giblje v polju avtobiografskega [govori o 
111
drami Avtor Tima Croucha, op. a.], na novo legitimira fikcijo v srčiki postdramskega 
gledališča in tako na nek način poustvari dramo. (30)
Zanimivo je, da Angel-Perez tu vzpostavlja povezavo med gledališčem in performansom, 
torej med eksperimentalnimi praksami iz šestdesetih in sedemdesetih let in sodobnim 
gledališčem, ki prav prek vdora realnosti ponovno ustvarja fiktivni svet drame, s tem 
pa tudi zunanjo referenco.
Z druge strani se problemu približa Anne Monfort v članku »Po postdramskem: 
pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in neodramskim gledališčem«. Odrska pisava 
ji pomeni celoten sistem znakov uprizoritve, med katerimi je besedilo le eden od 
njih in ostalim ni predhoden. Uprizoritve tako lahko vsebujejo neko besedilo, a se 
to ves čas meša z realnostjo odrske uprizoritve. Primer tega so izstopi igralcev iz 
vlog, pripovedovanje o prikazovanem svetu, elipse, zgoščevanje itd. Vse to pa seveda 
pomeni vdor pripovedi v gledališče. Na drugi strani gre za neodramsko gledališče, pri 
katerem obstajajo dramski liki in dejanje, čeprav so skrajno fragmentarni in se ves čas 
poigravajo z dvojnostjo fikcije in realnosti v gledališču. Kot zapiše Monfort: »Ta tekst 
[Zasebno življenje Ulrike Syha, op. a.] je tipičen primer neodramskega gledališča, pri 
katerem dejanje kljub vsemu ostaja, pa čeprav samo fragmentarno, prek oseb ali likov, 
ali celo če se igra z ambivalentnostjo med osebo in igralcem« (151).
Kot vidimo, tudi Anne Monfort ugotavlja, da gre pri sodobnem gledališču za 
prevpraševanje razmerja med realnostjo in fikcijo, ki ima svoje korenine v 
performansu in postdramskem gledališču. Ob tem pa velja poudariti, da obe avtorici 
odkrivata v teh tekstih in uprizoritvah ponovno vzpostavitev dramskih elementov, 
kakršni so dramske osebe in dramsko dejanje, čeprav je to večinoma skrajno 
fragmentarno. Poleg tega Monfort poudarja še eno poglavitno lastnost, ki smo jo 
opisali že ob estetiki performativnega. To je vključenost gledalca in njegova aktivna 
vloga. Kot zapiše v zaključku svojega članka: »Kot odgovor svetu, ki je vse bolj prežet s 
fikcijo in dramatičnostjo, sodobne gledališke oblike kakor znova pretresajo vprašanje 
resničnega in izmišljenega, obenem pa gledalcu puščajo prosto pot, da si zamisli 
dramo, ki je na odru ni« (158).
Gledališko besedilo torej ni le material, ki ga poljubno spreminja ustvarjalna ekipa 
ob uprizoritvi, ampak je tudi v celoti odprta struktura, ki gledalca/bralca vabi k 
razmišljanju in ustvarjanju lastne interpretacije oz. celo zgodbe.
Pomudimo se sedaj še ob dokaj radikalni tezi Blaža Lukana, ki jo je formuliral ob 
najmlajši generaciji slovenskih dramskih piscev, konkretno ob Varji Hrvatin, ki 
nas bo v nadaljevanju posebej zanimala. Kot zapiše, tak tekst »ne vsebuje nobene 
didaskalije, pri čemer izkazuje tudi povsem nerazvidno dialoško linijo, hkrati pa z 
nobenim namigom v svoji pisavi ne napotuje na uprizoritev« (115). Kljub temu ta 
112 besedila proizvajajo močne dramatične učinke, zahtevajo aktivno participacijo bralca 
oz. gledalca in jih zato nedvomno čutimo kot dramske, morda bolje uprizoritvene ali 
gledališke tekste. Takšno je tudi besedilo Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov, ki ga 
bomo analizirali v nadaljevanju in predvideva več različnih branj. Avtorica bralca/
gledalca usmerja, da si glede na svoje poglede in razpoloženje ustvari svojo zgodbo 
iz predlaganih delov ali pa prebere besedilo od začetka do konca. A vse skupaj ni 
le igra v postmodernističnem smislu, ampak avtorica prek teh prizorov izpoveduje 
svojo zgodbo iskanja identitete, spopadanja z anoreksijo, strahovi itd. Lukan na 
koncu članka vendarle tvega z napotkom, kako brati in uprizoriti to dramatiko: »[O]
svobojena kreativna evforija sodobnega dramskega pisca pričakuje tudi adekvaten 
odziv sodobnega režiserja in njegove ekipe« (118).
Iz predstavljenih teoretičnih izhodišč lahko zaključimo, da je modernizem šestdesetih 
in sedemdesetih let pomenil predvsem dekonstrukcijo dramske forme, vdor realnosti 
v gledališko uprizoritev in vključevanje gledalcev/bralcev oz. kreiranje skupnosti. Ta 
dediščina je močno opazna tudi v obdobju po postdramskem, ko pa sicer fragmentarna 
struktura ponovno proizvaja dramatične učinke in izkazuje nekatere elemente drame 
(npr. dramske like in dejanje). V nadaljevanju bomo s pomočjo primerjave konkretnih 
besedil skušali dognati paralele med eksperimentalnimi teksti iz obdobja modernizma 
in sodobno dramatiko na Slovenskem.
Sinopsis za happening Hlapci in mi, evropski mrliči
Prvi tekst, s katerim se bomo podrobno ukvarjali, je Sinopsis za happening Hlapci, ki je 
bil objavljen v reviji Problemi Katalog kot del repertoarnega načrta Male Drame SNG 
v Ljubljani v sezoni 1968/69. Izvedba je bila načrtovana v sklopu Slovenska izvirna 
besedila, kot avtorji pa so bili navedeni Žarko Petan (režiser), Dušan Jovanović (avtor) 
in Andrej Inkret (dramaturg). Do izvedbe ni nikoli prišlo, je pa Dušan Jovanović režiral 
Cankarjeve Hlapce v Mestnem gledališču ljubljanskem v sezoni 1980/81 (prim. 
Generator 356).
Gre za hepening, ki poveže gledalce in igralce v skupnost, obenem pa je usmerjen v 
zbujanje močnih, večinoma negativnih čustev, kot so strah, nelagodje, tesnoba. Začne se 
z vstopom v dogodek, ki spominja na ritual. Naslov tega dela je »Dvigalo groze«, preko 
katerega gledalci na koncu tudi zapustijo dogodek. V dvigalu med potovanjem ugasne 
luč in iz »teme se zaslišijo razni kriki, elektronski zvoki, molk, pospešeno dihanje in 
konkretna glasba. Dvigalo za nekaj časa obtiči, medtem zvočniki opozarjajo potnike, 
naj zadržijo mirno kri in ohranijo živce, ker jih bodo še potrebovali« (Jovanović 76). 
V foajeju in kadilnici se mešata na eni strani zabava – razstava slik, kipov, fotografij, 
prodaja pečenic in hrenovk ter čevljarske usluge in frizer – in ponovno glasna glasba 
113 in hrup. Občutek nelagodja se stopnjuje v dvorani, kamor gledalce zaklenejo, luč 
ugasnejo, od zunaj pa se slišijo trkanje in pozivi, naj spustijo igralce noter.
Sledi Jermanov govor v gostilni iz četrtega dejanja Cankarjevih Hlapcev, ki pa ga 
komentirajo sočasne projekcije: »mladinske delovne brigade/ ceste/ podjetja/ 
delovni uspehi« (78). Sledi župnikova replika o tem, da so se časi spremenili in da je 
ljudstvo izbralo, kakor je izbralo, ki pa jo spremljajo projekcije hipijevskega življenja 
ter policijske represije. Besedilo je tako ves čas relativizirano, obenem pa pripeljano 
v neposredno sodobnost.
Dogajanje se sprosti s prihodom recitatorja in plesalke, ki ju spremljajo projekcije 
sončne pokrajine in abstraktnih kompozicij. Temu intermezzu sledita prihod Jermana 
in scena v gostilni iz četrtega dejanja Cankarjevih Hlapcev. Vendar je v tej sceni vse 
pretirano in groteskno. »Kostumi so mešanica pižam, spalnih srajc, poklicnih oblačil 
in golote [...]Možje so v čudnih pozah. [...] Nekdo med prisotnimi sedi na ogromni 
nočni posodi, ki v prizorišču dominira z megafonom v rokah in se napenja. To naj bi 
bila govorniška tribuna« (79).
Zbrani imajo nekakšen samoupravljavski sestanek, vmes igrajo družabne igre, 
Jermani pa se množijo do številke šest. Vsak novi Jerman interpretira iste odlomke iz 
Cankarjeve drame na drugačen način in s tem ustvarja nekakšno polemiko. »Polemika 
med petimi Jermani se začne živo in na moč razgibano. Govore se vse replike. Velik 
hrup, v katerem se polagoma besede več ne razločijo« (81).
Sledi vnovič bolj sproščeno dogajanje, ko se iz zvočnikov predvajajo reklame in 
napoved barskega programa, spremljajo pa jih projekcije cirkuških atrakcij. Na koncu 
igralec skozi megafon govori pesem o Robespierru, iz zvočnikov pa slišimo šest 
Jermanov, ki pojejo pesem o Hlapcih.
Ko zvočniki naznanijo konec hepeninga, ponovno sledi prehod skozi dvigalo groze.
Jovanovićev hepening je emblematičen primer gledališkega dogodka po 
performativnem obratu. Temelji na samonanašalni feedback zanki med izvajalci in 
udeleženci, vzbuja pri gledalcih močna čustva, ki so večinoma neprijetna, ob tem pa 
ustvarja občutek skupnosti že z ritualnim vstopom in izstopom, celo s fizično ujetostjo 
v dvorani (zaklenjena vrata), sestankom, na katerem so obravnavani »vsi problemi, 
ki zadevajo prisotne v gostilni in vse druge občane in državljanke« (79). Pomen je 
ves čas relativiziran – tako Jermanove in Župnikove replike spremljajo nasprotujoče 
si projekcije – pogosto se govora sploh ne sliši ipd. Pomen besed je tako izvotljen in 
interpretacija je prepuščena vsakemu gledalcu, pri čemer le-ta nima občutka, da se 
njegova sklada z doživljanjem in interpretacijo ostalih, še manj pa mu je jasno, kaj mu 
skuša povedati ustvarjalna ekipa.
114 Simona Semenič je besedilo mi, evropski mrliči napisala leta 2015, leta 2016 je bilo 
uprizorjeno v Slovenskem mladinskem gledališču (režija Sebastijan Horvat, premiera 
5. 6. 2016). Gre za besedilo z močno prepoznavnimi postdramskimi značilnostmi – 
dogajanje je skrajno fragmentarno, besedilo pogosto ni izpisano in je prepuščeno 
uprizoritveni ekipi, avtorica ves čas pripoveduje s stališča gledalca/bralca, dramske 
osebe so bolj funkcije v celoti kot psihološko izdelani liki. Kljub temu je celota skrajno 
napeta in dramatična ter politično angažirana.
Na eni strani so konferansje, ki je nekakšen politični agitator in nam ves čas dopoveduje, 
da smo v dreku in da moramo nekaj ukreniti. Njegovo, javno, pozicijo dopolnjujejo 
vodovodarji, ki skušajo rešiti realno iztekanje dreka, v katerem se duši gledališka 
dvorana, Jolanda, ki kot nekakšen ovaduh beleži dogajanje na odru, in Milena, ki se lepa 
sprehaja sem in tja ter nas skuša očarati. Na drugi strani imamo intimne zgodbe, ki 
služijo kot kontrast družbenemu stanju in kot relativizacija javnega delovanja. Večinoma 
so statične. Takšna je Lojzka (Alojzija Bizjak), ki je prva na odru in ves čas le čaka. Na 
koncu se izkaže, da čaka na Smrt. Podobno pasivna je partizanka Milica, ki je v hospicu 
in ne more več govoriti, nam pa njeno tragično zgodbo družinskega nasilja pripoveduje 
avtorica. Sledi par »jakob in andreja / ali / jakob in silvo / ali / nina in andreja / ali 
/ silvo in nina« (369, 370), ki kot podoba zaljubljencev počasi hodi proti rampi in se 
drži za roke. Nasprotje tema predstavljata »jožica, 88 let, in milan, 91 let«. Ravno tako 
ljubimca, ki pa sta podoba mesenosti in užitka. »mi gledamo in se ne moremo prav 
odločiti, ali nam / je to prijetno / lepo je, če se dva poljubljata / ampak gledati jožico, 88 
let, in milana, 91 let, kako / se žvalita, v nas prebuja mešana občutja« (371).
Celotno dogajanje se stopnjuje proti koncu, ko dvorano ogrožajo ogromne količine 
dreka, ki mezi iz kanalizacije. Skupina vodovodarjev ga skuša zaustaviti, a brez uspeha. 
Kriv je kurba židovska škrta, ki ni hotel odobriti popravila, tako da so sedaj igralci in 
gledalci ne le v metaforičnem dreku, o katerem govori konferansje na začetku, ampak 
tudi v dejanskem dreku.
Konec se izteče v dvojno poanto. »politika je kurva iz kažina, bi čisto na koncu rekla 
/ partizanka milica [...] ampak partizanka milica nikoli več / nikoli več ne bo prišla 
do besede« in »sonce, vetrc, morje / svoboda« (429). Politika je torej nered in kurba, 
temu nasprotna pa je podoba narave, ki morda pomeni svobodo. 
Simona Semenič radikalizira nastavke, ki smo jih srečali že pri Jovanoviću. Besedilo je 
popolnoma naravnano na sprejemnika in na njegovo izkustvo. Besedilo pripoveduje 
pripovedovalka, ki jo bralec enači z avtorico in je obenem ena od bralk/gledalk: »četrta 
replika je res dolga / mi se že presedamo na stolih / ker nam preseda / jebemumater, 
kako nam preseda ta agitka / raje pogledujemo proti mileni / milena je res lepa / res 
lepa« (367).
115 Hrup ni več glasna glasba in različni posneti zvoki, ampak je realiziran na ravni 
teksta kot hitro menjavanje diskurzov, ki mu mora bralec določiti točke izjavljanja oz. 
dramske osebe.
to je res, je res, da smo v dreku, ampak vsaj plavamo / tako moraš na to gledat / vsaj 
plavamo
zadostikrat povedal, da na ta način stvari ne peljejo / nikamor
katere stvari
stvari / stvari pač /družba / družbena ureditev / državna ureditev / ureditev vrtov / 
vrtovi / nisem še / nisem še
za vstop v združene države amerike ne rabim vizuma / rabim esta obrazec, karkoli naj 
bi že to bilo
onkraj česa, jebemumater?
milena odide (374, 375)
Zgornji citat je le odlomek, ki naj ponazori strukturiranost celotnega besedila. Na prvi 
pogled gre morda za nizanje različnih govorov, ki med seboj niso povezani po kavzalni 
logiki, ampak po absurdnem naključju, vendar ta zmes replik, didaskalij in refleksij 
dogajanja vendarle proizvede občutek dramskih oseb, o katerih smo že govorili. 
Skratka, ta kakofonija glasov se zvede na nekaj prepoznavnih nosilcev diskurza, ki se 
umeščajo v večjo, konfliktno strukturo, v kateri dogajanje poteka simultano. Slednje 
bega sprejemnikovo recepcijo, saj mora posameznemu dogajanju pripisati določen 
pomen v celoti.
Še več, samo besedilo se zaveda, da je le eden od elementov uprizoritve in da ga 
bo ustvarjalna ekipa temeljito predelala, dopisala, brisala ... Ves čas ostaja odprto 
in razpoložljivo. Tako npr. replike konferansjeja, ki je osrednji lik, saj ima največ 
prostora na odru, večinoma sploh niso izpisane.
režijska domislica
in potem je šele začel
prva replika
premolk, v katerem se začne vmes, vmes med prvo in zadnjo repliko
druga replika
druga replika je
izraz naklonjenosti / drža pozdravila / nekaj vsebinsko zelo pomembnega pravzaprav. 
ampak v civilizirani družbi v komunikaciji med odraslimi ljudmi bistvenega pomena / 
za vzdrževanje nivoja kultiviranosti / formalna reč, nepogrešljiva v prenosu zahtev in 
želja / izraz naklonjenosti / drža pozdravila (361)
116 Sam konferansje je lahko kdorkoli: »morda konferansje / ali mobilizator / moški lik, 
ki ga lahko igra tudi ženska [...] morda je bolje, da ga igra ženska / materinska figura / 
mehka, zaobljena, topla / z mirom v glasu / mirom / in strastjo« (363).
Govorjene replike na odru niso več ključnega pomena. Replike partizanke Milice, ki so 
pravzaprav najbolj pretresljiva zgodba o nasilju v družini in nasilju nad ženskami, ne 
morejo biti izgovorjene, saj Milica ne govori več. Avtorica pa izvede še eno izvotlitev 
besede. Besede, ki jih tekst slovarsko definira, da postanejo prazne. Npr. drkati, ki se 
veže na konferansjejevo agitacijo in na ljubezenski par:
drkati / prvič / samozadovoljevati se, masturbirati / france si ga drka štirikrat dnevno 
/ drugič / drsati, starinsko / fantje so se drkali po ledu / tretjič / s stalnim rahlim 
premikanjem ali zgolj dotikanjem česa delati hrup ali motiti prisotne / nehaj že drkati 
stol! / četrtič / nekoga mučiti, nesorazmerno obremenjevati, zafrkavati / 20 eur za 
parkiranje? ne me drkat! (369)
Drug postopek je pregibanje besede, ki sicer spada v kontekst: »je kot tofu napram / 
biftek / bifteka / bifteku / biftek / bifteku / biftekom / je kot tofu napram bifteku / 
drkanje napram seksu je kot tofu napram bifteku« (376).
Simona Semenič tako združuje številne postopke neoavantgardnega gledališča in 
postdramske pisave, kot so fragmentarizacija, simultanost dogajanja, izvotljenje 
besed, razpoložljivost besedila in s tem njegova detronizacija, obenem pa v mi, evropski 
mrliči lahko ponovno zaznamo obrise dramskih oseb, ki so med seboj v konfliktnih 
razmerjih. Slednja gradijo prepoznavno dogajanje ali vsaj nasprotje ter se iztečejo v 
zaključno poanto, ki ni povsem eksplicitna, a jo lahko kljub temu jasno prepoznamo 
kot poziv k svobodi, intimi in obrat stran od političnih projektov. 
V formalnem smislu jo zaznamuje fragmentarnost besedila in simultanost 
dogajanja, kar je nedvomno dediščina postdramske pisave, obenem pa močan vdor 
lirizacije (glavna pripovedovalka celotno besedilo govori iz sebe in tudi komentira 
svoje intimno doživljanje dogajanja na odru) in epizacije (besedilo je močno 
prežeto s pripovedovanjem, kar pravzaprav omogoča njegovo simultanost in 
fragmentarnost). Tako je pri Simoni Semenič vidna močna dediščina uprizoritvenih 
tekstov iz obdobja modernizma, obenem pa že tudi njihovo preseganje in razvoj, 
ki ponovno vzpostavlja prav elemente drame, ki jih je dekonstruirala.
117
Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih 
proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov in Vse se je 
začelo z golažem iz zajčkov 
Rastko Močnik je leta 1970 v 85. številki revije Problemi objavil dva teksta, ki pa 
tvorita celoto. Gre za Generator, serijo kombinacij prostorov, ljudi, drž, glasov in 
gibov, ki sledijo določenim pravilom. Ta pravila so bila objavljena na drugem mestu 
v številki pod naslovom Drama. Slednja je programska utemeljitev Generatorja, ki 
izhaja iz analize dramskega teksta. Zanj je značilno, da zelo natančno določa govorno 
razsežnost uprizoritve, veliko ohlapnejše pa so določeni drugi elementi (fonične 
vrednosti izvedbe, položaji in premiki aktantov ter gibi). Močnikova Drama prav 
nasprotno zelo togo definira fonično in kinetično razsežnost, ohranja pa svobodo 
oz. naključnost vsakokratne izvedbe, saj izhodiščne situacije določi žreb, razvoj pa je 
izbira med možnimi kombinacijami različnih elementov (prim. Močnik 101). Avtor 
v nadaljevanju definira enote in pravila dramskega teksta, pri čemer je zanimivo, da 
med enotami (prostori, ljudje, drže, glasovi in gibi) ni besedila, ampak gre za drugačna 
izvajalčeva izrazna sredstva oz. elemente uprizoritve. Ti se združujejo po določenih 
pravilih, predvsem pa se izmenjujejo v vnaprej določenih serijah. Tako je »zaporedje 
drž: a-b-c-d-e-a... [...] smeri gibanja skoz prostore: a) smer urinega kazalca: I-II-III-
IV-I-..., b) smer, nasprotna od gibanja urinega kazalca« (102). Gre torej za nekakšno 
kompleksno igro, ki proizvaja poljubno število kombinacij osnovnih elementov, s 
tem pa tudi poljubno število dramskih kompleksov, kot jih imenuje avtor. Slednje so 
omejene z »nemožnimi kombinacijami«, ko bi bila ena od serij prekinjena oz. je ne bi 
bilo mogoče pravilno nadaljevati. V tem primeru se prekine gibanje skozi prostor in 
se kombinacija ponovi v istem prostoru ter nadaljuje z naslednjo kombinacijo v istem 
prostoru. Na koncu Drame Močnik zapiše navodilo: »Začetek: izhodiščne kombinacije 
in smer gibanja iz vsakega prostora določi žreb; konec: igre je konec, ko se hkrati 
zgodijo 4 nemožne kombinacije in zato vsi štirje ljudje hkrati obstanejo« (102).
Besedilo je izrazito usmerjeno v uprizoritev in stran od besedila. Slednjega ni, saj so 
dramski kompleksi sestavljeni iz drugih elementov uprizoritve. Še najbliže diskurzu 
je šest glasov, ki pa so predjezikovni elementi. Dogajanje je simultano, izvajajo ga štirje 
ljudje v štirih prostorih. Posamezni gledalec gradi pomen glede na lastno sprejemanje 
in doživljanje predstave, ki v njem lahko vzbuja le določene vtise, nikakor pa ne 
sugerira možnih pomenov. Tekst tako na prvi pogled spada v postdramsko tradicijo, 
pri čemer pa je manj poudarka na kreiranju skupnosti. Še več, zdi se, da je za to 
strukturo ključno naključje, žreb, kar izključuje racionalni subjekt. S tem je ta tekst 
močno zasidran v modernizmu z idejami o toku zavesti, avtomatski pisavi ipd.
Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov je dramski tekst, ki je nastal leta 2019 in bil istega 
leta tudi uprizorjen na Novi pošti Slovenskega mladinskega gledališča (režija Eva 
118 Kokalj, produkcija KUD Krik in JSKD v sodelovanju z Novo pošto), Varja pa je leta 2020 
za to besedilo dobila tudi Grumovo nagrado za mladega dramatika v okviru 50. Tedna 
slovenske drame. Tudi to besedilo se začne z navodili za uporabo oz. s »Prologom, ki 
je zelo dolga opomba«. V njej med drugim beremo: 
1. Če se imaš za bolj razumsko osebo, ki daje prednost racionalnemu, si nagnjen k  
analiziranju ter sprejemaš odločitve na podlagi tega, kaj se ti najbolj splača, potem je 
zate najprimernejša MOŽNOST A [...]
2. Če se imaš za bolj emocionalno osebo, ki se hitro prepusti čustvom, si nagnjen k  
sanjarjenju ter sprejemaš odločitve na podlagi trenutnega razpoloženja, je zate 
najprimernejša MOŽNOST B [...]
3. Če pa si eden od bolj impulzivnih ljudi, se rad znajdeš v nenavadnih, naključnih  
situacijah, ravnaš spontano in se zanašaš na sprejemanje odločitev v trenutku, brez 
kakršnih koli pričakovanj, ti priporočam MOŽNOST C. (947)
Kar je skupnega Generatorju in Vse se je začelo, je uporabnost besedila. Bralec/gledalec 
ga odkriva glede na določene izbire. Celota predstavlja igro, skozi katero se ustvarja 
pomen. Vendar pri Varji ta igra ni več stvar naključja in ni ločena od sprejemnika. Prav 
nasprotno, glavna igralca sta, kot zapiše avtorica: »dramski avtor in bralec + ostali 
soigralci, ki v tišini pridno čakajo na stranski klopi« (945). Tu ne gre več za naključje 
in avtomatsko pisavo, pač pa za sprejemnikovo izbiro. Še več, ta izbira ga v temelju 
določa. Avtorica uporablja diskurz iz revij za življenjski slog ali knjig za samopomoč, 
ki dajejo nasvete glede na psihološki ustroj posameznika. Če smo racionalni, je za 
nas možnost A itd. Sprejemnik se torej z izbiro tudi psihološko definira oz. bo izbral 
glede na to, kako se želi ali se vidi. Te izbire se skozi celoten tekst ponavljajo, le da 
sedaj niso več vezane zgolj na psihološki profil sprejemnika, pač pa tudi na njegovo 
željo po smeri nadaljevanja: »ČE ŽELIŠ, DA GREM ŠTUDIRAT NEKAJ UPORABNEGA, 
obrni na stran 971« (969), ali življenjske izkušnje: »ČE SI TUDI TI KDAJ PREVARAL/-A 
SVOJEGA FANTA ALI PUNCO, obrni na stran 970« (968).
Celota so izseki iz avtoričine avtobiografije, na kar kažejo številne podrobnosti, kot 
so preimenovanje njenega očeta Emila Hrvatina v Janeza Janšo, njena izbira študija 
dramaturgije na AGRFT ... Ob teh zunanjih podrobnostih, ki sugerirajo branje drame 
na ključ, pa Varja ves čas razkriva svoje notranje doživljanje in psihološki razvoj, ki je 
potekal prek občutkov krivde in drugačnosti v otroštvu, prek kasnejšega spopadanja 
z anoreksijo, iskanja partnerja itd.
Kako se torej ta struktura in vsebina umeščata v postdramsko ali celo neodramsko 
paradigmo? Besedilo ostaja nekaj povsem razpoložljivega. Lahko ga beremo na več 
načinov in s tem sami kreiramo zgodbo avtorice. Slednja se tako kaže kot nekaj 
fikcijskega, kot pripoved, ki pa kljub temu temelji na resničnih dejstvih, kar ji daje 
veliko mero avtentičnosti. Sprejemnik je aktivni soustvarjalec lastne izkušnje in ta 
119 je pravzaprav povsem osebna in neponovljiva. Izbor je narejen glede na trenutno 
razpoloženje, videnje samega sebe, iz tega izhajajočih odločitev, ki jih mora sprejeti, 
in občutka, da bo v vsakem primeru nekaj izpustil, zamudil. Vsaka izbira namreč 
prinaša tudi izgubo vseh ostalih možnosti. Prav to drugačno dojemanje, pogled pa je 
že za Lehmanna eno temeljnih določil postdramskega. Tudi povezava med izvajalko/
avtorico in sprejemnikom, ki se ves čas vzpostavlja preko nagovorov in izbir, je nekaj, 
kar bistveno definira gledališki dogodek, kot ga razume Erika Fischer-Lichte. Vendar 
pa gre v Vse se je začelo tudi za vdor pripovedi v dramsko besedilo. Čeprav je bilo 
besedilo nagrajeno kot najboljša drama mlade dramatičarke v letu 2020 in je bilo 
leto prej tudi uspešno uprizorjeno, Blaž Lukan že na začetku svoje analize opozori 
na več dilem: 1. Kako analizirati novo dramo zunaj vseh okvirov, definicij? 2. Kako to 
dramo brati? in 3. Kdo sploh bere? (prim. »Tega« 99, 100). Izhaja torej iz občutka, da 
gre za novo pisavo, ki »se včasih zdi resnično nova, nato pa spet nekaj že zdavnaj – 
še posebej v modernistični dramatiki in postdramatiki – videnega in reflektiranega« 
(prav tam 97).
Kot smo ugotovili tudi sami, gre za preplet postdramske tradicije in močne epizacije in 
lirizacije. Po eni strani za vdor pripovedovalca, v konkretnem primeru dramatičarke 
same, ki pripoveduje o svojem življenju, ki pa nima več funkcije epizacije, preboja 
četrte stene v smislu Szondijevega koncepta, ampak skozi to pripoved prinaša lirski 
subjekt. Ta epizacija namesto potujitvenega učinka prinaša, prav nasprotno, učinek 
povezanosti med dramatičarko in gledalcem, ki sooblikujeta avtoričino intimno 
zgodbo oz. eno od njenih možnih interpretacij. Čeprav bi ob besedilu lahko govorili o 
prepoznavni dramski osebi (pripovedovalka/avtorica) in dramskem dejanju (prizorih 
iz njenega življenja, ki jih strukturira bralec s svojimi izbirami in imajo vnaprej 
določeno strukturo/-e), sta ta elementa drame uporabljena na izrazito postdramski 
način, ki temelji na dogodku, fragmentarnosti in aktivni vlogi sprejemnika. Tako 
izkazuje Varja Hrvatin močan vpliv postdramskega, ki pa ga cepi na enako močan vdor 
epizacije in lirizacije, s čimer ustvarja izrazito dramatične učinke.
Sklep
Sedaj lahko poskušamo odgovoriti na izhodiščni vprašanji. Kje so podobnosti in 
razlike med obravnavanimi teksti?
Podobnosti so očitne. Vsem gre za ustvarjanje gledališkega dogodka, ki je neponovljiv in 
zahteva aktivno udeležbo sprejemnika (bralca ali gledalca). V ta namen manipulirajo s 
sprejemnikovimi čustvi (npr. ustvarjanje nelagodja, tesnobe, zmedenosti), uporabljajo 
simultano dogajanje in fragmentarnost dejanja, s čimer od sprejemnika zahtevajo 
120 odločitev za izbiro lastnega dogodka in seveda tudi lastne interpretacije. Z vsem 
tem spadajo ti teksti v domeno postdramskega in v tem smislu lahko potrdimo, da je 
vpliv eksperimentalnih besedil iz obdobja neoavantgard še vedno močno prisoten v 
sodobni slovenski dramatiki.
Vendar pa se med tema generacijama kažejo tudi nekatere pomembne razlike. Če 
gre pri Jovanoviću in Močniku v prvi vrsti za destrukcijo gledališke uprizoritve, za 
detronizacijo dramskega besedila z vsemi posledicami, je pozicija Simone Semenič 
in Varje Hrvatin bistveno drugačna. Gledališče se je v vmesnem obdobju že vrnilo 
k besedi in postalo družbeni forum v osemdesetih letih, se ponovno odvrnilo od 
besede in šlo v smer fizičnega gledališča, sodobnega plesa ... (devetdeseta leta) pa 
se spet vrnilo k besedilu (po letu 2000). Skratka, napetost med tekstom in odrom ni 
več osrednja točka dramske pisave, ampak postane to razmerje nekaj razpoložljivega. 
Podobno kot elementi tradicionalne drame (npr. dramska oseba, dejanje) in postopka 
epizacije in lirizacije. Semenič in Hrvatin uporabljata vse to na nove načine, da bi 
dosegla kar največjo vključenost sprejemnika. Predvsem izkušnja gledalca/bralca 
postane osrednja točka te pisave. Pri Semenič je nenehno reflektirana, saj se zdi, da 
avtorica/pripovedovalka pripoveduje prav s stališča gledalke. Varja jo izpostavlja z 
nenehnimi pozivi k izbiri, ki je vezana na gledalca, njegov psihološki profil in življenjske 
izkušnje. Tako smo priča močnemu vdoru pripovedi, ki se meša s prikazovanjem 
(diegezis in mimezis, kot ugotavlja Anne Monfort) in z močnim občutkom intimnosti 
ter avtentičnosti. Avtorici nas namreč potegneta v lastni svet oz. lastni pogled na svet, 
ki se zdi, da izhaja iz lirskega subjekta, ne nazadnje pa tudi iz sprejemnikovega, saj 
postanemo soustvarjalci predstave in njenih pomenov. Ravno ta preplet pa je tisto, 
kar ustvarja visoko stopnjo dramatičnosti in pritegne današnjega bralca/gledalca.
121
Literatura
Angel-Perez, Élisabeth. »Nazaj k verbalnemu gledališču: post-post-dramska gledališča 
od Crimpa do Croucha.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišič, 
Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2021, str. 23–30. 
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. Estetika performativnega. Prev. J. Drnovšek, Študentska založba, 
2008. Koda.
Haas, Birgit. »History through the Lens of the Uncertainty Principle: Dea Loher‘s 
'Leviathan'.« The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, letn. 39, št. 
1, 2006, str. 73–87.
Hrvatin, Varja. »Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov.« Sodobnost, letn. 84, št. 7/8, str. 
945–978.
Jakovljević, Branislav. Učinki odtujitve. Performans in samoupravljanje v Jugoslaviji, 
1945–1991. Maska, 2021. Zbirka Transformacije, 45.
Jovanović, Dušan. »Sinopsis za happening Hlapci.« Generator:: za proizvodnjo 
poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, ur. Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, 
Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, str. 76–83. Dokumenti 
slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103.
Kralj, Lado. Teorija drame. DZS, 1998. Literarni leksikon, 44.
Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramsko gledališče. Prevedel K. J. Kozak, Maska, 2003.
Lukan, Blaž, ur. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. 
Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. 
Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103.
—. »Tega teksta nikoli ni bilo. Vse je samo fikcija.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra 
Pogorevc in Tomaž Toporišič, Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2021, str. 97–120.
Močnik, Rastko. »Drama, Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih 
proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov.« Generator:: za proizvodnjo 
poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, ur. Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, 
Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, str. 101–105. Dokumenti 
slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, letn. 58, št. 103.
Monfort, Anne. »Po postdramskem: pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in 
neodramskim gledališčem.« Drama, tekst, pisava 2, ur. Petra Pogorevc in Tomaž 
Toporišič, Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2021, str. 147–160.
Orel, Barbara. »K zgodovini performansa na Slovenskem.« Dinamika sprememb v 
slovenskem gledališču 20. stoletja, ur. Barbara Sušec Michieli, Blaž Lukan in Maja 
Šorli, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, Maska, 2010, str. 271–327. 
122 Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktülle Bühnenstücke und 
ihre drama turgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997. 
Semenič, Simona. tri drame. Beletrina, 2017.
Sierz, Aleks. Gledališče »u fris«. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2004.
Toporišič, Tomaž. »Dramska pisava po postdramskem: Anja Hilling, Milena Marković 
in Simona Semenič.« Slavistična revija, letn. 68, št. 2, 2020, str. 109–124.
Troha, Gašper. Ujetniki svobode. Aristej, 2015.
124
UDK 821.163.6.09-2 
DOI 10.51937/Amfiteater-2023-1/124-145
To some extent, contemporary drama is the heir of the neo-avant-garde of the late 1960s and 
1970s. This time was that of the so-called performative turn, which pulled theatre away from 
representation and towards presentation. The subsequent development can be designated 
by various labels, such as postdramatic theatre, the aesthetics of the performative and, in the 
case of dramatic texts, the no longer dramatic theatre text, “In-Yer-Face” theatre, etc.
In Slovenia, a decisive turn from text to event took place towards the end of the 1960s. 
During this time, the first happenings and performance art pieces were taking place. In 
reviewing the performance Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki (Pupillja, Papa Pupilo and the 
Pupilceks), Veno Taufer went as far as to declare the death of literary theatre. At first 
glance, it would thus appear that contemporary playwriting is merely repeating earlier 
patterns. While contemporary playwriting may more radically formulate linguistic and 
aesthetic games, it deconstructs the dramatic form and thus radicalises the premises of 
the neo-avant-gardes; in the last two decades, we have been talking about a return to 
dramatic, post-postdramatic and dramatic drama, etc.
Through a comparative analysis of two of the more radical texts from Blaž Lukan’s anthology 
Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov (The Generator:: for 
Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes), namely Dušan Jovanović’s Sinopsis 
za happening Hlapci (Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys) and Rastko Močnik’s 
Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih 
kompleksov (A Generator that Produces Any Number of Drama Complexes from Given 
Units and According to Simple Rules) as well as Simona Semenič’s mi, evropski mrliči 
(we, the european corpses) and Varja Hrvatin’s Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov (It 
All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash), the paper shows that the neo-avant-garde 
is more about the question of theatrical performances and the form of the dramatic text, 
while contemporary drama is more about the search for authenticity and dramatic effects.
Keywords: Dušan Jovanović, Rastko Močnik, Simona Semenič, Varja Hrvatin, Slovenian 
experimental theatre, Slovenian drama
125
Gašper Troha holds a PhD from the Department of Comparative Literature and Literary 
Theory, Faculty of Arts, University of Ljubljana. His research interests include the sociology 
of literature, especially the contemporary world and Slovenian drama and theatre. He 
is a researcher at the Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of 
Ljubljana. He has published in numerous national and international scientific journals. He 
is a co-author with Vanesa Matajc and Gregor Pompe of History and its Literary Genres 
(Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008), Literarni modernizem v »svinčenih« letih (Literary 
Modernism in the “Leaden” Years, Študentska založba, 2008) and Lojze Kovačič: življenje 
in delo (Lojze Kovačič: Life and Work, Študentska založba, 2009). In 2015, he published the 
monograph Ujetniki svobode (Prisoners of Freedom, Aristej) about the development of 
Slovenian drama and theatre under socialist rule.
gasper.troha@guest.arnes.si
126
Contemporary Drama and the Question of 
the Neo-avant-garde Legacy of the 1960s 
and 1970s
Gašper Troha  
Academy of Theatre, Radio, Film and Television, University of Ljubljana
Introduction
1
To some extent, contemporary drama is the heir of the neo-avant-garde of the late 
1960s and 1970s. This period saw the so-called performative turn, which pulled 
theatre away from representation and towards presentation. As Barbara Orel notes 
about the development of performance art: “The path to performance art in Slove-
nia also went through the aesthetics of the performative, in which ritual forms of 
theatre and ritual-related artistic and social practices that bind all participants into 
a community played a major role” (“K zgodovini” 278). The subsequent develop-
ment can be designated by various labels, e.g., postdramatic theatre  (Lehmann), the 
aesthetics of the performative (Fischer-Lichte) and, in the case of dramatic texts, the 
no longer dramatic theatrical text (Poschmann), “In-Yer-Face” theatre (Sierz), etc.
In Slovenia, a decisive turn from text to event took place towards the end of the 
1960s. During this time, the first happenings and performance art pieces were tak-
ing place. In reviewing the performance Pupilija, papa Pupilo pa Pupilčki (Pupilija, 
Papa Pupilo and the Pupilceks), Veno Taufer went as far as to declare the death of 
literary theatre.
At first glance, it would thus appear that contemporary playwriting is merely repeat-
ing earlier patterns. While contemporary playwriting may more radically formulate 
linguistic and aesthetic games, it deconstructs the dramatic form and thus radicalises 
the premises of the neo-avant-gardes; in the last two decades, we have been talking 
about a return to dramatic (Toporišič “Dramska pisava”), post-postdramatic (An-
gel-Perez) and dramatic drama (Haas), etc.
1 Acknowledgements: The paper was written in the framework of the research programme “Theatre and Interart Studies” 
(P6-0376), co-financed by the Slovenian Research Agency from the state budget.
127 Thus, there are two questions that we have to ask here: What are the differences be-
tween the experimental texts of the second half of the 20
th
 century and contemporary 
Slovenian drama? And what are their common features?
We will highlight these questions by analysing two of the more radical texts from Blaž 
Lukan’s anthology Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov 
(The Generator:: for Manufacturing Any Number of Drama Complexes), namely Dušan 
Jovanović’s Sinopsis za happening Hlapci (Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys) and 
Rastko Močnik’s Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravilih proizvaja pol-
jubno število dramskih kompleksov (A Generator that Produces Any Number of Drama 
Complexes from Given Units and According to Simple Rules) and comparing them to 
Simona Semenič’s mi, evropski mrliči (we, the european corpses) and Varja Hrvatin’s 
Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov (It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash). 
But before we analyse the selected texts, we need to consider the basic theoretical 
concepts that theatre studies and literary history use to describe the development of 
playwriting over the last 60 years.
The Performative Turn and Its Consequences in Theatre and 
Dramatic Writing
As pointed out at the beginning, radical changes in art and its relationship to society 
occurred towards the end of the 1960s in the USA, Europe and Yugoslavia. In her 
seminal book, The Transformative Power of Performance, Erika Fischer-Lichte later 
referred to these changes with the term the aesthetics of the performative. She based 
this term on the performance by the Yugoslav artist Marina Abramović entitled Lips of 
Thomas, which she performed on 24 October 1975 at the Krinzinger Gallery in Inns-
bruck. The author describes the crucial point of this change as follows:
Such a performance eludes the scope of traditional aesthetic theories. It vehemently re-
sists the demands of hermeneutic aesthetics, which aims at understanding the work of 
art. In this case, understanding the artist’s actions was less important than the experienc-
es that she had while carrying them out and that were generated in the audience. In short, 
the transformation of the performance’s participants was pivotal. (Fischer-Lichte 16)
In order to be able to describe such events and to attribute particular meanings to 
them, a different approach is needed, which Fischer-Lichte calls the aesthetics of the 
performative since traditional aesthetic theories of art are not able to consider the 
work of art after the performative turn. “However, they are unable to grasp its key as-
pect – the transformation from a work of art into an event” (Fischer-Lichte 23). These 
128 conceptual pairings overlap and thus produce the effects of liminality, a threshold 
that transforms the participants or results in the emergence (contingent appearance) 
of effects or meanings.
Another author who has significantly conceptualised this development of theatre and 
theatre texts after the performative turn is Hans-Thies Lehmann with his book Post-
dramatic Theatre. Lehmann also proceeds from the insight that theatre is, first and 
foremost, a matter of community. “Theatre means the collectively spent and used up 
lifetime in the collectively breathed air of that space in which the performing and the 
spectating take place [...] The theatre performance turns the behaviour onstage and 
in the auditorium into a joint text, a ‘text’ even if there is no spoken dialogue on stage 
or between actors and audience” (17). Thus, he emphasises the capacity of theatre 
to form a community. Then he puts into question the position of the text, which has 
traditionally been considered the source and measure of the success of a theatrical 
performance and the element that guaranteed the synthesis of theatrical signs.
In postdramatic theatre, this hierarchy shatters, and different performance elements 
become equal in status while their simultaneity and multiple meanings become em-
phasised. As Lehmann writes in the introduction to his book:
By alluding to the literary genre of the drama, the title “Postdramatic Theatre” signals 
the continuing association and exchange between theatre and text. Nevertheless, the dis-
course of theatre is at the centre of this book and the text therefore is considered only 
as one element, one layer, or as a “material” of the scenic creation, not as its master. (17)
Consequently, the postdramatic theatre produces different dramatic texts, which Ger-
da Poschmann designates as no longer dramatic theatre texts, “in which language ap-
pears not as the speech of characters – if there still are definable characters at all – but 
as an autonomous theatricality” (18). We can no longer speak about the elements of 
traditional drama theory, such as the dramatic person, the dramatic act, the creation 
of illusion ... (cf. Kralj), but rather about language which becomes autonomous and 
about language surfaces, as Elfriede Jelinek calls them, that create tension and reflect 
the contemporary world.
Another important aspect for us is Lehmann’s view of the neo-avant-garde, which he 
considers to be the third stage in the development of postdramatic theatre, as this is 
the period to which the texts published in The Generator anthology belong as well. 
While Lehmann considers the neo-avant-garde primarily as the drama of the absurd 
and lyrical drama, he is aware that “the 1960s see the development of a new spir-
it of experimentation in all arts” (53), which culminates in the 1968 movement. He 
also mentions happenings and performance art and points out that “In 1969, Richard 
Schechner stages Dionysius 69, in which the spectators are invited to get into physical 
129 contact with the players” (53). And this already takes us into the area of the postdra-
matic. For Lehmann, the defining characteristic of the postdramatic is precisely the 
position of the dramatic text. As he endeavours to discern the differences between 
epic theatre and the theatre of the absurd on the one hand and postdramatic theatre 
on the other, Lehmann writes:
Yet the step to postdramatic theatre is taken only when the theatrical means beyond 
language are positioned equally alongside the text and are systematically thinkable 
without it. Hence we cannot speak of a “continuation” of absurdist or epic theatre in the 
new theatre but must name the rupture: that epic, as much as absurdist theatre, though 
through different means, clings to the presentation of a fictive and simulated text-cos-
mos as a dominant, while postdramatic theatre no longer does so. (55)
Since the dramatic text becomes dethroned within the performance, this also puts into 
question the meaning of the whole, which is no longer coherent and is quite challenging 
to define. It becomes fluid and depends on the interpretation of the individual. Leh-
mann states, “The aim is no longer the wholeness of an aesthetic theatre composition of 
words, meaning, sound, gesture, etc., which as a holistic construct offers itself to percep-
tion. Instead, the theatre takes on a fragmentary and partial character” (57). And, as we 
shall see below, these are also the main characteristics of the dramatic texts under dis-
cussion. In them, the elements of drama are disappearing, and the text becomes dispos-
able and directs the other aspects of theatrical performance. Meaning is lost or remains 
extremely open, which leads to fragmentation and arbitrariness of interpretation.
In the former Yugoslavia, this development of theatre and the arts in general, which 
emerged from the spirit of the 1968 student riots, aligned with the aspirations for 
complete freedom of creativity and the search for a new way of life. As Barbara Orel 
notes, this generation pursued “the imperative of a creative life, and maintained its 
radical stance in a free-thinking leftist spirit, resisting all forms of political, social, 
economic and cultural despotism” (“K zgodovini” 278, 279). The demand for freedom 
naturally pointed away from established modes of performance, away from hierarchi-
cal relations within performances and towards the formation of community.
This, however, was not exclusively a Slovenian phenomenon but a broader Yugoslav 
one. Branislav Jakovljević, for example, in his detailed study of the relationship 
between the development of performance art and Yugoslav socialism, also detects the 
spontaneous emergence of the student movement in 1968, which was, however, soon 
neutralised. Self-management was presented as a social form that allowed for extreme 
individual freedom, thus fulfilling the demands of students. Nonetheless, it was always 
a bit problematic. This is how Jakovljević analyses Raša Todosijević’s performance 
piece entitled Decision as Art, first performed in August 1973 at the Richard Demarc 
Gallery in Edinburgh. Mere months later, he performed it at the Student Cultural 
130 Centre in Belgrade at the exhibition Information II, where the performance took on 
completely different connotations. As his partner, Marinela Koželj sits impassively on 
a chair placed upstage right, the artist, stripped to the waist, first applies white paint 
to four small ficus plants positioned along the front edge of the stage. He covers his 
naked torso with salt, picks a live carp from a tank and places it on the floor. As the fish 
wriggles about the stage, he begins swallowing large quantities of water. The artist 
and the fish suffer in unison: the carp slowly suffocates on dry land, and Todosijević 
gulps water until he throws up, then drinks again. This “game” goes on until the carp 
dies. The performer paints one of his ears white and then faces the audience, holding 
a small battery-operated flashlight in his extended right arm. He holds it until the 
battery dies or until he can no longer hold up his arm (cf. 142).
Although the British monarchy is far from the absolutism of the 18th century, its ideological, 
political and theological background imbued the first performance of Todosijević’s 
Decision as Art with a note of noble and emphatically anti-democratic art of decision-
making. However, when reprised in the post-revolutionary society of Yugoslavia, the 
same performance brought a whole new set of questions to the foreground. “[...] whereas 
the former was commercial, the latter was not; and while the former was fully integrated 
within the network of art institutions, the latter was an expression and continuation of the 
communal spirit of Belgrade’s June ’68” (Jakovljević 144).
In the United Kingdom, this functioned as a commentary on capitalist social relations 
in the monarchy. In Yugoslavia, it was seen as a government reckoning with the 
students after the 1968 movement. Therefore, such artistic explorations of artists 
were also a commentary on the freedom of expression and the individual’s right to 
choose their lifestyle, thus indirectly presenting social commentary.
At first glance, Marina Abramović’s performance appears to be more explicit. “When, in 
the early evening of 20 April 1974, Marina Abramović stepped into a burning five-pointed 
star, having first clipped her finger- and toenails and cut some of her hair and thrown 
them into the flames, she entered into an intersection of art and politics, conceptualism 
and ideology, that was unique to post- 1968 Yugoslavia” (Jakovljević 177).
Marina Abramović pointed out the connection between power and art much more 
explicitly. She would repeat this gesture on later occasions (e.g., using the five-pointed 
star in her piece Lips of Thomas). However, this act cannot be read as a symbol of 
government violence or the extinguishing of fiery revolutionary ideals. “The situation 
in Yugoslavia was much more complex, and it might be more appropriate to read the 
five points of this burning structure as a constellation of mutually opposed forces at 
work in Yugoslavia at that time” (Jakovljević 179). I make a similar point in my study 
of Slovenian drama and theatre between 1945 and 1990 when I demonstrate the 
delicate balance between the largely conflicting tendencies of artists, authorities and 
131 audiences that allowed for the flourishing of Slovenian playwriting and theatre after 
1960 (Cf. Troha, Ujetniki). A discussion on the relationship between art and power 
under socialism is beyond the scope of our present purpose, so let us here merely 
summarise the realisation that art, with its aesthetic breakthroughs and explorations 
in the former Yugoslavia, also achieved political impact.
Contemporary Dramatic Writing between Postdramatic  
and Dramatic
After 1990, precisely due to the abovementioned position of alternative culture, 
which in the 1980s transitioned from the margins to the centre, theatre in general, 
and experimental art in particular, faced a challenge. As Barbara Orel so aptly for-
mulates it: “How to preserve and maintain the identity of the alternative when it no 
longer speaks from the structural place of the marginal since the distinction between 
the centre and the margin has been abolished in principle?” (“K zgodovini” 320).
The answer to this question was to search for new conceptual and aesthetic starting 
points that could provide an alternative to the independent state’s new cultural and 
political conditions. After 2000, we can see this alternative emerge in the radicalisation 
of postdramatic theatre and later in its coexistence with a return to the dramatic form.
Since we have already described postdramatic theatre and the no longer dramatic 
theatre text, let us now look at the latest tendencies in dramatic writing, which be-
come mixed with postdramatic or more traditionally dramatic elements, depending 
on individual authors.
Birgit Haas notes that, after a long postdramatic period, contemporary German dra-
ma has begun reintroducing some dramatic elements. She writes about the play-
wright Dea Loher:
Despite the defamiliarized Verfremdungseffekt, however, she neither subscribes to the 
postmodern decentering of the subject nor to the end of the metanarratives. Instead, 
Loher draws on Walter Benjamin’s revolutionary Marxist aesthetic that he established 
in order to retain a human element in the arts, a human element that would resist the 
technical innovations of his time (Haas 74, 75).
Loher is not, however, implying a return to realism but rather to the creation of radi-
cally fragmentary texts that bear the mark of the postdramatic, as she
deliberately causes a feeling of uncertainty, mainly due to the mixture of private and 
public political discourses. [...] her work is a creative and productive revival of the 
Brechtian theatre in the context of the post-postmodern age, an age in which human 
132
beings have again reclaimed the theatrical space. [...] Loher’s theatre is a theatre of em-
powerment, a politically engaged theatre that does not leave the bewildered spectator 
in front of a destroyed history. (Haas 85)
Tomaž Toporišič reaches similar insights when analysing dramatic writing after the 
postdramatic. In doing so, he notes that in different ways the authors Anja Hilling, Milena 
Marković and Simona Semenič reach beyond the no longer dramatic theatre writing. Thus, 
he detects the inability to communicate and the deconstruction of the body and voice in 
Anja Hilling’s plays, the deconstruction and reconstruction of the representation of reality 
in Simona Semenič’s plays, and the contamination with the lyrical and the epic in Milena 
Marković’s works. Let us look at his description of the structure of Simona Semenič’s 
dramatic works, which will be of particular interest to us later on:
She persistently reworks the dialogic form in conjunction with a variety of textual 
strategies: from stage directions to descriptions that are closer to novels and prose, to 
the narrative, essayistic, theoretical and other techniques, reminding the audience that 
what they are reading or watching is no longer a real dialogue. However, in doing so, she 
produces distinctly dramatic effects that Haas would probably call “dramatic drama”. 
(“Dramska pisava” 114)
Élisabeth Angel-Perez reaches similar conclusions. Namely, that postdramatic theatre, 
through the deconstruction of drama, actually creates a new fiction, thus returning to 
the elements it was originally deconstructing. As Angel-Perez writes at the end of her 
article “Back to Verbal Theatre: Post-Post-Dramatic Theatres from Crimp to Crouch”:
The author on the stage delineates a new sort of lyrical subject, half way between the-
atre and performance and, albeit on the mode of autobiography [author’s note: here, 
she is referring to Tim Crouch’s play The Author], relegitimizes fiction at the heart of 
post-dramatic theatre and therefore somehow recreates the drama. (30)
Interestingly, Angel-Perez establishes a link here between theatre and performance 
art, that is, between the experimental practices of the 1960s and 1970s and contem-
porary theatre, which re-creates the fictional world of drama, and thus external refer-
ence, precisely through the intrusion of reality.
In her article “ Après le postdramatique: narration et fiction entre écriture de plateau 
et théâtre néo-dramatique”, Anne Monfort approaches this problem from a different 
angle. To her, stage writing means the whole sign system of a performance, in which 
text is only one of the elements and does not precede the others. Thus, while perfor-
mances may contain a text, it is constantly mixed with the reality of the stage per-
formance itself. Examples of this can be seen in actors breaking the fourth wall or 
narrating about the depicted world, ellipsis, condensation, etc. All of this, of course, 
represents an intrusion of the narrative into the theatrical. On the other hand, there 
133 is neo-dramatic theatre, where we can find dramatic characters and action. They are, 
however, highly fragmentary and constantly play with the duality of fiction and reality 
in the theatre. As Monfort writes: “This text [Author note: Ulrike Syha’s Private Life] 
is a typical example of neo-dramatic theatre in which there is still action, even if only 
fragmentary, through persons or characters, or even if playing with the ambiguity of 
the person and the actor” (151).
As we can see, Anne Monfort also notes that contemporary theatre is about question-
ing the relationship between reality and fiction, which draws its origins from perfor-
mance art and postdramatic theatre. At the same time, it is worth pointing out that in 
these texts and performances, both authors discover the re-establishment of dramat-
ic elements, such as dramatic characters and dramatic action, even if they are mostly 
highly fragmentary. In addition, Monfort emphasises another principal feature, which 
we have already described when discussing the aesthetics of the performative. This 
feature refers to the involvement of the spectator and their active role. As Monfort 
writes in the conclusion of her article, “ As a response to an increasingly fictionalised 
and dramatised world, contemporary forms of theatre are rethinking the question of 
the real and the fictional, leaving the spectator free to imagine the drama that does 
not occur on the stage” (158).
A theatre text, therefore, is not only the material that the creative team arbitrarily 
changes in their performance. It is also a completely open structure that invites the 
spectator/reader to think and create their own interpretation or story.
Let us now turn to the rather radical thesis that Blaž Lukan formulated concerning 
the youngest generation of Slovenian playwrights, specifically Varja Hrvatin, who 
will be particularly interesting to us later. As Lukan writes, such a text “contains no 
stage directions, its line of dialogue is also completely indistinct, while at the same 
time, in such writing, there is no hint of direction whatsoever about its performance” 
(115). Nevertheless, such texts produce strong dramatic effects and require active 
participation on the part of the reader or spectator, and therefore undoubtedly 
feel like dramatic, or rather stage or theatre texts. This also goes for the play It All 
Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash, which we analyse below and which anticipates 
several different readings. The author directs the reader/spectator to either create 
their own story according to their own opinions and attitudes from the suggested 
sections or to read the text from beginning to end. But this is not merely a game in 
the postmodernist sense; through the scenes, the playwright tells her own story of 
searching for her identity, coping with anorexia, her fears, etc. At the end of his article, 
Lukan nevertheless takes a risk and suggests how to read and perform such drama: 
“The liberated creative euphoria of a contemporary playwright expects an appropriate 
response from the contemporary director and their crew” (118).
134 From the presented theoretical starting points, we can thus conclude that the mod-
ernism of the 1960s and 1970s meant, above all, the deconstruction of the dramatic 
form, the intrusion of reality into the theatrical performance, and the involvement of 
the spectators/readers, i.e., the creation of a community. This legacy can also be noted 
in the period following the postdramatic when the otherwise fragmentary structure 
once again produces dramatic effects and displays some elements of drama (e.g., dra-
matic characters and action). Below, we try to detect potential parallels between the 
experimental texts from the modernist period and contemporary Slovenian drama by 
comparing specific texts.
Synopsis for The Happening of Lackeys and we, the european 
corpses 
The first two texts we will deal with in detail are Synopsis for The Happening of Lack-
eys, published in the journal Problemi Katalog as part of the repertoire plan for the 
1968/69 season of the small stage of the Slovenian National Theatre Drama Ljubljana. 
The production was planned as part of the Original Slovenian Texts section, with Žarko 
Petan (director), Dušan Jovanović (author) and Andrej Inkret (dramaturg) listed as 
authors. The production was never carried out, but Dušan Jovanović directed Ivan 
Cankar’s Hlapci (Lackeys) at the Ljubljana City Theatre in the 1980/81 season (cf. The 
Generator 356).
It is a happening that joins spectators and actors into a community while aiming to 
arouse strong, mostly negative emotions such as fear, discomfort and anxiety. It starts 
by entering an event that resembles a ritual. The title of this part is The Elevator of 
Terror, through which the audience eventually leaves the event. During the ride in 
the elevator, the lights go out and “various screams, electronic sounds, silence, rapid 
breathing and concrete music are heard in the dark. The elevator is stuck for a while, 
while loudspeakers warn passengers to keep calm and hold their nerves, as they will 
need them” (Jovanović 76). A party – an exhibition of paintings, sculptures, photo-
graphs – is going on in the foyer and smoking room. Somebody is selling sausages and 
hotdogs, a shoemaker and hairdresser are offering their services – and again, loud 
music and noise. A feeling of discomfort intensifies in the auditorium, where the spec-
tators are locked inside, the lights are switched off, and they start hearing knocking 
from the outside and calls to let in the actors.
Next follows Jerman’s speech in the tavern from Act Four of Cankar’s Lackeys, which 
is commented on by simultaneous projections of “youth work brigades/ roads/ busi-
nesses/ labour successes [...]” (Jovanović 78). It is followed by the parish priest’s reply 
that times have turned and the people have made their choice, accompanied by pro-
135 jections of hippie life and police repression. The text is thus constantly relativised. At 
the same time, it is also updated with the immediate present.
The action becomes a bit lighter with the appearance of a reciter and a dancer, ac-
companied by projections of a sunny landscape and abstract compositions. This in-
termezzo is followed by the arrival of Jerman and the tavern scene from Act Four of 
Cankar’s Lackeys. Everything in this scene, however, is exaggerated to the grotesque. 
“The costumes are a mixture of pyjamas, nightgowns, professional clothes and nudity 
[...] The men appear in strange poses. [...] One of them is sitting on a huge bedpan, 
dominating the scene with a megaphone in hand and straining. This is supposed to be 
a speaker’s podium” (79).
The assembled crowd holds a kind of self-management meeting, during which they 
play board games, and Jerman starts multiplying until there are six of them. Each new 
Jerman interprets the same passages from Cankar’s play differently, thus creating a 
kind of polemic. “The polemic between the five Jermans begins in a lively and vigor-
ous manner. They speak all the lines. A great noise, in which gradually the words are 
no longer distinguishable” (81).
Then it is back to more simple action, with commercials and bar announcements play-
ing over the loudspeakers, accompanied by projections of circus acts. In the end, an 
actor recites a poem about Robespierre through a megaphone, and the six Jermans 
can be heard singing a song about the lackeys over the loudspeakers.
After the loudspeakers announce the end of the happening, the audience leaves in the 
elevator of terror again.
Jovanović’s happening is an emblematic example of a theatrical event following the 
performative turn. Based on a self-referential feedback loop between performers and 
participants, it evokes strong, mostly unpleasant emotions in the audience while cre-
ating a sense of community already with the ritual entrance and exit, and even through 
physical confinement to the auditorium (with locked doors), a meeting at which “all 
the problems that concern the people present in the tavern, as well as all the other 
citizens, are confronted” (Jovanović 79). All meaning is constantly relativised – con-
tradictory projections accompany both Jerman’s and the Priest’s lines – often, their 
speeches cannot be heard at all, etc. The meaning of the words is thus hollow, and 
their interpretation is left to each spectator without any reassurance that their inter-
pretation is in line with the experience and interpretation of the others. And it is even 
less clear what message the creative team is trying to convey.
Simona Semenič wrote her play we, the european corpses in 2015, and it was first 
staged at the Mladinsko Theatre in 2016 (directed by Sebastijan Horvat, première 5 
June 2016). It is a text full of readily recognisable postdramatic features – the action 
136 is highly fragmented, the text is often not entirely written out, and it is up to the per-
formance team to supplement it. The author is all the time narrating from the point of 
view of the spectator/reader. The characters appear more like wholesome functions 
than fully psychologically articulated persons. Nevertheless, the whole is extremely 
tense and dramatic as well as politically engaged.
On one side, there is the character of the master of ceremony (emcee), a kind of po-
litical agitator who keeps telling us that we are swimming in shit and that we need to 
do something about it. His public position is complemented by a group of plumbers 
who are trying to resolve the issue of the actual leakage of faeces that is drowning the 
theatre auditorium, as well as Jolanda, who is keeping track of the action on stage as a 
kind of a snitch, and Milena, who is wandering around looking all pretty and trying to 
charm us. On the other side, there are intimate stories that serve as a contrast to the 
social situation and a relativisation of public action. They mostly appear very static. 
This is the case with Lojzka (Alojzija Bizjak), who is the first one to come on stage 
and is just waiting for the whole duration of the performance. In the end, it turns 
out that she is actually waiting for the character death. The partisan Milica, who is 
in hospice care, is similarly passive, unable even to speak, while her tragic story of 
domestic violence is related to us by the author. Next comes the couple “jakob and 
andreja/ or/ jakob and silvo/ or/ nina and andreja/ or silvo and nina” (Semenič 8). 
They represent the image of a couple of lovers slowly strolling towards the ramp, 
holding hands. Their opposites can be seen in “jožica, 88, and milan, 91”, who are 
also a couple of lovers. They, however, represent the image of carnality and pleasure. 
“we’re watching and can’t really decide whether we’re comfortable with this/it’s nice 
when two people are kissing/ but to watch jožica, 88, and milan, 91, make out evokes 
mixed emotions in us” (Semenič 9).
The action intensifies towards the end when the auditorium is threatened by vast 
amounts of shit pouring out of the sewers. The group of plumbers is trying to stop it 
but to no avail. The one to blame for this is a motherfucking stingy Jewish git who re-
fused to authorise replacing the pipes, so now the actors and the audience find them-
selves not merely in metaphorical shit the emcee talks about at the beginning but also 
in actual shit.
The ending ends in a double punchline: “politics is a whore from a brothel, milica the 
partisan would say in the end [...] but milica the partisan will never again/never again 
get her words in edgeways” and “sun, breeze, sea/ freedom” (Semenič 39, 40). Thus, 
politics turns out to be a mess and a whore, while its opposite is represented by the 
image of nature, which perhaps stands for freedom.
Simona Semenič radicalises the starting points we have encountered in Jovanović’s 
text. Her text is wholly oriented towards its receiver and their experience. The text is 
137 narrated by a narrator whom the readers identify as the author herself but who, at the 
same time, appears to be one of the readers/spectators:
the fourth line is truly long /we’re fidgeting in our chairs already/because we’re tired/ 
bloody hell how we’re tired of this agit-prop/we prefer to glance towards milena/mile-
na is truly beautiful/ truly beautiful. (Semenič 6, 7)
The noise here is no longer produced by the loud music and various recorded sounds; 
rather, it is actualised at the level of the text as the rapid exchange of discourses, for 
which the reader has to identify their points of enunciation, i.e., their dramatis personae.
it is true that we’re in shit, but at least we’re swimming/this is how you should be 
looking at it/at least we’re swimming
often told enough that this way, things will lead us nowhere 
what things 
things/ things, like/society/social structure/state structure/garden structure/gar-
dens/i haven’t yet/i haven’t yet
to enter the united states of america, i don’t need a visa/ i need the esta form, what-
ever that’s supposed to be
beyond what, dammit?
milena leaves. (Semenič 11)
The above quotation is just an excerpt to illustrate the structure of the whole text. 
At first glance, it may appear to be a series of diverse speeches, not related by any 
causal logic but rather by absurd coincidence. However, this pell-mell of lines, stage 
directions and reflections on the action nevertheless produce the sense of dramatis 
personae we have already discussed. In short, it is possible to reduce this cacophony 
of voices to some identifiable representatives of the discourse, situated within a more 
extensive, conflicting structure in which the action is happening simultaneously. The 
latter interferes with the receiver’s reception since they have to attribute to individual 
events specific meanings in the grand scheme of what is happening.
The text is aware that it is merely one element of the performance and will be exten-
sively reworked, rewritten, crossed out, etc., by the creative team. Thus it remains 
open and disposable at all times. For example, the lines of the emcee, who appears to 
be the play’s central character, are mostly not written out at all since he is given the 
most time and space on stage.
a theatrical effect
and only then he started
the opening line 
a pause, in which the in-between begins, the in-between between the opening and clos-
138
ing lines
the second line 
the second line is 
an expression of affection/a stance of a greeting/something trifling in content, in fact, 
but in a civilised society of utmost importance in communication among adults/to 
maintain a level of sophistication/a formal thing, indispensable in the transfer of de-
mands and wishes/an expression of affection/a stance of a greeting (Semenič 3).
The emcee himself can be anyone: “perhaps the emcee /or the mobilizer/ a male 
character that can also be played by a woman [...] perhaps it’s better that he’s played 
by a woman/a maternal figure/ soft, rounded, warm/ with peace in her voice/ peace/ 
and passion” (4).
The lines spoken on stage are no longer essential. The lines of the partisan Milica, which 
tell a shocking story of domestic violence and violence against women, cannot be spo-
ken since Milica can no longer speak. The author here performs another hollowing out 
of the word. In a dictionary-like manner the text defines words to make them empty, 
e.g., to jerk off, which refers to the emcee’s agitation and the loving couple:
to jerk/ one/ to jerk off: to masturbate./ france jerks off four times a day/two/to make 
spasmodic motions:/my legs jerked from fatigue/ three/to make and serve (ice-cream 
sodas, for example) at a soda fountain./why don’t you go outside and jerk yourself a 
soda?/four/to jerk around: to take unfair advantage of, deceive, or manipulate/ 20 eu-
ros for parking? don’t try to jerk around with me! (Semenič 7, 8)
A different approach is to play around with a word which otherwise fits the context: 
“is like tofu compared to/beefsteak/rump steak/skirt steak/sirloin/ top loin/flank/
is like tofu compared to beefsteak/jerking off compared to sex is like tofu compared 
to beefsteak” (Semenič 11, 12).
Simona Semenič thus combines many procedures of neo-avant-garde theatre and 
postdramatic writing, such as fragmentation, simultaneous action, hollowing out 
of words, the disponibility of the text and thus its dethronement, while at the same 
time, it is possible to detect in we, the european corpses the outlines of the dramatis 
personae who are in conflicting relationships with each other. These make up recog-
nisable actions or at least contrasts and culminate in a conclusion that is not entirely 
explicit but can nevertheless be identified as a call for freedom, intimacy and turning 
away from political projects.
The formal structure is characterised by the fragmentary nature of the text and si-
multaneous lines of action, which undoubtedly represents the legacy of postdramatic 
writing, but also a decisive irruption of lyricisation (the narrator tells us the entire 
text from her own personal position, commenting on her intimate perception of what 
139 is going on on stage) and episation (the text is heavily infused with narration, which 
allows for its fragmentary nature and simultaneous action). Thus we can discern 
a strong legacy of performance texts of the modernist period in Simona Semenič’s 
work. At the same time, she also reaches beyond them and develops them in a way 
that re-establishes the very elements of drama that she has deconstructed.
A Generator that Produces Any Number of Dramatic Complexes 
from Given Units and According to Simple Rules and It All Started 
with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash
In 1970, in issue 85 of the journal Problemi, Rastko Močnik published two texts that, 
however, form a unit. A Generator is a series of combinations of spaces, people, stanc-
es, voices and movements that follow specific rules. These rules were published in a 
different section of the journal entitled Drama. This was a conceptual explication of 
A Generator, which derived from an analysis of the dramatic text, which is character-
ised by an exact definition of the spoken dimension of the performance. In contrast, 
other elements (phonic values of the performance, the characters’ stances and move-
ments) are much more loosely defined. Contrary to that, Močnik’s Drama defines the 
phonic and kinetic dimensions very precisely while retaining the freedom or rather 
the contingent nature of each performance, as the starting situations are determined 
by the luck of the draw, and the subsequent development depends on the possible 
combinations of various elements (Cf. Močnik 101). The author goes on to define the 
units and rules of the dramatic text, and it is interesting to note that the text does not 
feature among its units which instead consist of other means of expression by the 
performers or other elements of the performance (spaces, people, stances, voices and 
movements). These are combined according to specific rules, but above all, they alter-
nate in predefined series. Thus, the “sequence of attitudes is: a-b-c-d-e-a... [...] the di-
rections of movement through the spaces are: a) clockwise: I-II-III-IV-I-..., b) counter-
clockwise” (Močnik 102). Thus, what we are dealing with is a kind of complex game 
that can produce any number of combinations of its essential elements and, therefore, 
also any number of dramatic complexes, as the author calls them. The latter is limited 
by “impossible combinations”, which we would get if any of the series got interrupted 
or could not be continued properly. In this case, the movement through space would 
be interrupted, and the combination would be repeated in the same space and contin-
ued with the following combination in the same space. At the end of Drama, Močnik 
writes down the instructions: “Start: the starting combinations and the direction of 
movement from each space are determined by draw; end: the game is over when four 
impossible combinations happen at the same time, and thus all four people stop at the 
same time” (102).
140 The text is explicitly performance-oriented and moves away from the text. There is no 
text, as the dramatic complexes are composed of other performance elements. The clos-
est thing to discourse is the six voices which, however, represent pre-linguistic elements. 
The action is simultaneous, performed by four people in four spaces. The individual 
spectator constructs meaning according to their own reception and experience of the 
performance, which can only evoke certain impressions, but in no way suggest poten-
tial meanings. Thus, at first sight, the text could be said to belong to the postdramatic 
tradition, however, with not so much emphasis on the creation of community. Moreover, 
it would appear that chance, and the luck of the draw is crucial to its structure, which 
excludes the rational subject. In this sense, the text is firmly rooted in modernism with 
its ideas about the stream of consciousness, automatic writing, etc.
It All Started with the Bunny Rabbit Goulash is a play written in 2019 and first staged 
at the Nova pošta (The New Post Office) of the Mladinsko Theatre in the same year 
(directed by Eva Kokalj, produced by KUD Krik and JSKD in coproduction with The 
New Post Office). In 2020, Varja won the Young Playwright Award for this text at the 
50
th
 Week of Slovenian Drama. Her text also begins with some instructions for use, i.e., 
a “Prologue, which is a very long footnote”. Here one can read:
1. If you consider yourself to be more of a rational person, who prefers the rational, is 
prone to analysis and makes decisions based on what promises the biggest payoff, then 
go for OPTION A [...]
2. If you consider yourself to be more of an emotional person, who is quick to be over-
whelmed by emotion, is prone to daydreaming and makes decisions based on momen-
tary disposition, go for OPTION B [...]
3. If, however, you are one of the more impulsive people, who like to get involved in un-
usual, random situations, act spontaneously and rely on making decisions on the spur of 
the moment, without any expectations, I recommend OPTION C. (Hrvatin 947)
What A Generator and It All Started have in common is how the text can be used. The 
reader/spectator discovers it according to particular choices. The whole represents 
a game through which meaning is created. But in Varja’s case, this game is no lon-
ger a matter of chance and is not separated from the receiver. On the contrary, the 
main players are, as the author writes: “the playwright and the reader + the other 
players waiting in silence on the side bench” (Hrvatin 945). It is no longer a matter 
of chance and automatic writing but rather a consequence of the receiver’s choice. 
What is more, this choice fundamentally determines them. The author uses the dis-
course from lifestyle magazines or self-help books, which offer advice adapted to the 
individual’s psychological makeup. If we are more of a rational type, we should go for 
option A, etc. Thus, by making their choice, the receiver also psychologically defines 
themself, i.e., they choose according to what they want to be like or how they want to 
perceive themself. These choices are repeated throughout the text, except that now 
141 they are no longer linked to the psychological profile of the receiver alone but also to 
their desire for which direction to follow: “IF YOU WANT ME TO STUDY SOMETHING 
USEFUL, turn to page 971” (Hrvatin 969), or to their life experience: “IF YOU EVER 
CHEATED ON YOUR BOYFRIEND OR GIRLFRIEND, turn to page 970” (Hrvatin 968).
The bulk of the play comprises excerpts from the author’s autobiography, as indicated 
by many details, such as her father Emil Hrvatin changing his name to Janez Janša, her 
choice to study dramaturgy at the Academy for Theatre, Radio, Film and Television ... 
Besides these external details, which suggest a turnkey reading of the play, Varja con-
tinuously reveals her inner experience and psychological development that unfolded 
through feelings of guilt and alienation throughout her childhood, her later struggles 
with anorexia, her search for a partner, etc.
How do this structure and content fit the postdramatic or even neo-dramatic para-
digm? The text remains perfectly disposable. We can read it in different ways and thus 
create the author’s story by ourselves. The latter thus manifests itself as a fictional 
story. However, one that is nevertheless based on facts, which gives it imbues it with a 
great deal of authenticity. A recipient actively co-creates their own experience, which 
is, in fact, entirely personal and unrepeatable. The choice depends on their mood at 
the moment, the way they see themself, the resulting decisions they have to make and 
the feeling that, in any case, they will miss something, for every choice entails the loss 
of all other possibilities. For Lehmann, it is precisely this different perception – this 
different view – that essentially defines the postdramatic. Also, the connection be-
tween the performer/author and the receiver constantly maintained through direct 
addressing and choices, fundamentally defines the theatrical event as understood by 
Erika Fischer-Lichte. However, It All Started is also about the intrusion of the narrative 
into the dramatic text. Even though the text was awarded the Best Young Playwright 
Award in 2020 and was successfully staged the year before, Blaž Lukan points out sev-
eral dilemmas from the beginning of his analysis: 1) How to analyse a new drama that 
is outside all frameworks and definitions? 2) How to read this drama? And 3) Who 
is the one reading it at all? (cf. “Tega teksta” 99, 100). He proceeds from the intuition 
that this is a piece of new writing, which “sometimes appears to be genuinely new, but 
then again as something already seen and reflected long ago - especially in modernist 
drama and postdrama” (“Tega teksta” 97).
As we have determined, the play combines postdramatic tradition and strong episa-
tion and lyricisation. On the one hand, the intrusion of the narrator, in this concrete 
case, this is the playwright herself, who narrates her life, no longer has the function of 
episation, of breaking the fourth wall in the sense of Szondi’s notion; instead, the nar-
rative introduces the lyrical subject. Rather than producing an alienating effect, the 
episation has the opposite effect of creating a connection between the playwright and 
142 the spectator, both co-creating the author’s intimate story or, rather, one of its pos-
sible interpretations. Although we could speak of an identifiable dramatic character 
(the narrator/author) and dramatic action (scenes from her life, which are structured 
by the reader’s choices and have a predetermined structure or structures), these two 
elements of the play are used in a distinctly postdramatic way, based on the event, 
fragmentation and the active role of the receiver. Thus, Varja Hrvatin displays a strong 
influence of the postdramatic, which she combines with the equally strong intrusion 
of episation and lyricisation, thus creating distinctly dramatic effects.
Conclusion
At this point, we can try to answer our two starting questions. What are the similari-
ties and differences between the analysed texts?
The similarities are apparent. All of the plays endeavour to create an unrepeatable 
theatrical event that requires the active participation of the receiver (be it the reader 
or spectator). To this end, they manipulate the receiver’s emotions (e.g., creating dis-
comfort, anxiety, confusion) and introduce simultaneous activities and fragmented 
action, thus requiring the receiver to choose their own event and, of course, their own 
interpretation. All of this places these texts clearly into the domain of the postdra-
matic. In this vein, we can confirm that the influence of experimental texts from the 
neo-avant-garde period is still strongly present in contemporary Slovenian drama.
However, there are also some crucial differences between the two generations. If 
Jovanović and Močnik are primarily concerned with the destruction of theatrical 
performance and the dethronement of the dramatic text with all consequences that 
this leads to, the position of Simona Semenič and Varja Hrvatin is fundamentally 
different. In the intervening period, theatre already returned to the spoken word and 
became a social forum in the 1980s, then turned away from the word again and moved 
in the direction of physical theatre and contemporary dance (the 1990s), and finally 
returned to the text once more (after 2000). In short, the tension between text and 
stage is no longer the focal point of playwriting; instead, this relationship becomes 
disposable, just like the elements of traditional drama (e.g., dramatic characters and 
action) and the process of episation and lyricisation. Semenič and Hrvatin use all of 
these in new ways to maximise the receiver’s involvement. Above all, the experience 
of the spectator/reader becomes the focal point of this writing. In Semenič’s work, 
this is constantly reflected upon, as the author/narrator appears to be telling the 
story from the specator’s point of view. Varja emphasises the spectator’s experience 
by constantly calling upon them to make a choice bound to the spectator, their 
psychological profile and their life experiences. Thus, we are witnessing a forceful 
143 intrusion of the narrative combined with spectacle (diegesis and mimesis, as Anne 
Monfort notes) and a strong sense of intimacy and authenticity. The authors draw us 
into their own world, their own worldview, which seems to emanate from the lyrical 
subject, and, ultimately, also from the receiver themself, as we become co-creators of 
the performance and its meanings. And it is precisely this interplay that creates a high 
degree of drama and appeals to today’s readers/spectators.
144
Literature
Angel-Perez, Élisabeth. “Back to Verbal Theatre: Post-Post-Dramatic Theatres 
from Crimp to Crouch.” Études britannique contemporaines, no. 45, 2013, 
https://doi.org/10.4000/ebc.862. Accessed 4 March 2023.
Fischer-Lichte, Erika. The Transformative Power of Performance: A New Aesthetics. 
Trans. by S. I. Jain, Routledge, 2008.
Haas, Birgit. “History through the Lens of the Uncertainty Principle: Dea Loher’s ‘Le-
viathan’.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 39, no. 1, 
2006, pp. 73–87.
Hrvatin, Varja. “Vse se je začelo z golažem iz zajčkov.” Sodobnost, vol. 84, no. 7/8, pp. 
945–978.
Jakovljević, Branislav. Alienation Effects. Performance and Self-Management in Yugo-
slavia, 1945-91. University of Michigan Press, 2016.
Jovanović, Dušan. “Sinopsis za happening Hlapci.” Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubne-
ga števila dramskih kompleksov, edited by Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki inštitut, 
Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, pp. 76–83. Dokumenti sloven-
skega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103.
Kralj, Lado. Teorija drame. DZS, 1998. Literarni leksikon 44.
Lehmann, Hans-Thies. Postdramatic Theatre. Trans. by Karen Jürs-Munby, Rout-
ledge, 2006.
Lukan, Blaž, editor. Generator:: za proizvodnjo poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov. 
Slovenski gledališki inštitut, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021. 
Dokumenti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103.
—. “Tega teksta nikoli ni bilo. Vse je samo fikcija.” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by Pe-
tra Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišič, Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2021, pp. 97–120.
Močnik, Rastko. “Drama, Generator, ki iz določenih enot in po preprostih pravi-
lih proizvaja poljubno število dramskih kompleksov.” Generator:: za proizvodnjo 
poljubnega števila dramskih kompleksov, edited by Blaž Lukan, Slovenski gledališki 
inštitut, Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, 2021, pp. 101–105. Doku-
menti slovenskega gledališkega inštituta, vol. 58, no. 103.
Monfort, Anne. “Po postdramskem: pripoved in fikcija med odrsko pisavo in 
neodramskim gledališčem [After the postdramatic: narrative and fiction between 
stage writing and neo-dramatic theatre].” Drama, tekst, pisava 2, edited by Petra 
Pogorevc and Tomaž Toporišič, Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2021, pp. 147–160.
Orel, Barbara. “K zgodovini performansa na Slovenskem.” Dinamika sprememb v slo-
145 venskem gledališču 20. stoletja, edited by Barbara Sušec Michieli, Blaž Lukan and 
Maja Šorli. Akademija za gledališče, radio, film in televizijo, Maska, 2010, pp. 271–
327.
Poschmann, Gerda. Der nicht mehr dramatische Theatertext: Aktüelle Bühnenstücke 
und ihre dramaturgische Analyse. Niemeyer, 1997.
Semenič, Simona. we, the european corpses. 2015, https://www.simonasemenic.com/plays1. 
Accessed 5 March 2023.
Sierz, Aleks. Gledališče ‘u fris’. Mestno gledališče ljubljansko, 2004.
Toporišič, Tomaž. “Dramska pisava po postdramskem: Anja Hilling, Milena Marković 
in Simona Semenič.” Slavistična revija, vol. 68, no. 2, 2020, pp. 109–124.
Troha, Gašper. Ujetniki svobode. Aristej, 2015.